Of the sacred order and offices of episcopacie by divine institution, apostolicall tradition and catholique practice together with their titles of honour, secular employment, manner of election, delegation of their power and other appendant questions asserted against the Aerians and Acephali new and old / by Ier. Taylor ...

OF THE Sacred Order, and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION, APOSTOLICALL TRADITION, & Catholick practise &c.

IN all those accursed machinations, which the device, and artifice of Hell hath invented, for the supplanting of the Church, Inimicus homo, that old superseminator of heresies, and crude mis∣chiefes, hath indeavou∣red, to be curiously compendious, and with Tar∣quin's device, putare summa papaverum. And there∣fore in the three ages of Martyrs, it was a rul'd

case in that Burgundian forge, Qui prior erat digni∣tate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium. The Priests, but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all. Tolleimpios, Polycarpus requiratur. Away with these pedling persecutions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lay the axe at the root of the tree. Insomuch that in Rome from S. Pe∣ter, and S. Paul to S. Sylvester, thirty three Bishops of Rome, in immediate succession, suffered an Ho∣nourable, and glorious Martyrdome, unlesse* 1.1 Mel∣tiades be perhaps excepted, whom Eusebius, and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius. Con∣teret caput ejus, was the glorious promise, Christ should break the Divell's head, and though the Di∣vell's active part of the Duell was farre lesse, yet he would venture at that too, even to strike at the heads of the Church, capita vicaria, for the head of all was past his striking now; And this, I say, he offered to doe by Martyrdome, but that insteed of break∣ing, crown'd them.

His next onset was by Iulian, and occidere Presby∣terium, that was his Province. To shut up publick Schooles, to force Christians to ignorance, to im∣poverish, and disgrace the Clergy, to make them vile, and dishonourable, these were his arts; and he did the Divell more service in this finenesse of un∣dermining, then all the open battery of the ten great Rammes of persecution. But this would not take. For that which is without cannot defile a man, So it is in the Church too. Cedunt in bonum, all vio∣lences ab extr••.

But therefore besides these he attempted by he∣resies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces; but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces & reunited them at Nice, at Constantinople, at Ephe∣sus, at Chalcedon, at Carthage, at Rome, and in eve∣ry famous place of Christendome, and by God's goodnesse, and the Bishops industry Catholick reli∣gion was conserved in Vnity, and integrity. Well! however it is, Antichrist must come at last, and the great Apostacy foretold must be, and this, not with∣out means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity. When ye heare of warres, and rumors of warres, be not afraid (said our B. Saviour,) the end is not yet. It is not warre that will doe this great work of destruction, for then it might have been done long 'ere now. What then will doe it? We shall know when we see it. In the meane time when we shall find a new device, of which indeed the platforme was laid, in Aërius, and the Acephali, brought to a good possibility of compleating, a thing that whosoever shall heare, his ••ars shall tingle, an abhomination of desolation stand∣ing 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 Aposta∣cy.

For if Antichrist shall exalt himselfe above all that is called God, and in Scripture none but Kings, and Priests are such, Dii vocati, Dii facti, I think we have great reason to be suspitious, that he that devests b••th of their power (and they are, if the

King be Christian, in very neer conjunction,) does the work of Antichrist for him; especially if the men, whom it most concernes, will but call to mind, that the discipline, or Government, which Christ hath instituted, is that Kingdome, by which he governes all Christendome (so themselves have taught us) so that, in case it be proved, that Episco∣pacy is that government, then they (to use their own expressions) throw Christ out of his Kingdome; and then, either they leave the Church without a head, or else put Antichrist in substitution.

We all wish, that our feares in this, and all things else, may be vaine, that what we feare, may not come upon us; but yet that the abolition of Episco∣pacy is the fore-runner, and praparatory to the great Apostacy, I have these reasons to shew, at least the [ 1] probability. First, Because here is a concurse of times; for now after that these times have been cal∣led the last times, for 1600 years together, our ex∣pectation of the Great revelation is very neer ac∣complishing; & what a Grand innovation of Ecclesia∣sticall government, contrary to the faith, & practice of Christendome, may portend now in these times, when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is wor∣thy [ 2] of a jealous mans inquiry. Secondly, Episco∣pacy, if we consider the finall cause, was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schisme and Here∣sy. So* 1.2 S. Hierome. In toto orbe decretum est, ut u∣nus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris, VT SCHISMATVM SHMINA TOLLE••ENTUR. And therefore if Vnity and division be destructive of

each other, then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schisme: and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ; for Schisme is a division for things either personall, or accidentall, which are matters, most properly the subject of government, and there to be tryed, there to receive their first, and last breath, except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude; and Episcopacy is an Unity of per∣son governing, and ordering persons, and things, accidentall, and substantiall; and therefore a direct confronting of Schisme, not only in the intention of the author of it, but in the nature of the institution. Now then, although Schismes alwaies will be, and this by divine prediction (which clearly showes the necessity of perpetuall Episcopacy, and the in∣tention of its perpetuity, either by Christ himselfe ordaining it, who made the prophecy, or by the A∣postles and Apostolick men at least, who knew the prophecy:) yet to be sure, these divisions, and dan∣gers shall be greater about, and at the time of the Great Apostacy; for then, were not the houres turn∣ed into minutes, an universall ruine should seize all Christendome [No flesh should be saved if those daies were not shortned.] is it not next to an evidence of fact, that this multiplication of Schismes must be removendo prohibens? and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy, ordayn'd as the remedy and obex of Schisme, either tying their hands behind them, by taking away their coërcion, or by putting out their eyes, by denying them cognisance of causes spirituall, or by cutting off their heads, and so de∣stroying

their order. How farre these will lead us, I leave to be considered. This only; Percute pastores, at{que} oves despergentur; and I believe it will be veri∣fied at the comming of that wicked one, I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountaines as sheep having no sheapheard.

I am not new in this conception, I learn't it of S. Cyprian;* 1.3 Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus ini∣micus ad hoc, ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITVM suâ in∣festatione persequitur, ut, Gubernatore sublato, atro∣ciùs, at{que} violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragia grasse∣tur. The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop, that having taken him away, he may without check pride him∣selfe in the ruines of the Church; and a little after speaking of them, that are enemies to Bishops, he sayes, that, Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur, their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed.

But be this conjecture vaine, or not, the thing, of it selfe is of deep consideration, and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insup∣portable a prejudice against the enemies of Episco∣pacy, that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture, or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles, or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves, or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages.

But before I begin, mee thinks in this contestati∣on, ubi potior est conditio possidentis, it is a considera∣ble Question; what will the Adversaries stake a∣gainst

it? For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good, they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession. If it can; I feare they will scarce gain so much, as the obedience of the adverse party by it, which yet already is their due. It is very unequall; but so it is ever, when Authority is the matter of the Question. Authority never gaines by it; for al∣though the cause goe on its side, yet it looses costs, and dammages; for it must either by faire condescen∣tion to gain the adversaries', loose something of it selfe, or, if it asserts it selfe to the utmost, it is but where it was; but that seldome or never happens, for the very questioning of any authority, hoc ipso, makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing.

But hûc deventumest. Now we are in, we must goe over.

FIrst then, that wee may build upon a Rock.* 1.4 Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority, according to his lawes, and by the assistance of the B. Spirit.

1. If this were not true, how shall the Church be governed? For I hope the adversaries of Episco∣pacy, that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scrip∣ture ground, will be sure to produce cleare Scri∣pture for so maine a part of Christianity, as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church. And, if for our private actions; and duties Oeconomi∣call, they will pretend a text, I suppose, it will not be thought possible, Scripture should make default

in assignation of the publick Government, inso∣much as all lawes intend the publick, and the gene∣rall directly; the private, and the particular, by con∣sequence only, and comprehension within the ge∣nerall.

2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government, then we must derive it from humane prudence, and emergency of conveniences, and con∣curse of new circumstances, and then the Govern∣ment must often be changed, or else time must stand still, and things be ever in the same state and possibi∣lity. Both the consequents are extreamely full of in∣convenience. For if it be left to humane prudence, then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good, and benison of soules, or if it be, that such an institution, in such immedi∣ate order to eternity, should be dependant upon hu∣mane prudence, it were to trust such a rich commo∣dity in a cock-boat, that no wise Pilot will be sup∣posed to doe. But if there be often changes in go∣vernment Ecclesiasticall (which was the other consequent) in the publike frame I meane, and con∣stitution of it; either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise, or the dangerous issues of publick incon∣sistence, and innovation, which, in matters of reli∣gion, is good for nothing, but to make men di∣strust all; and, come the best that can come, there will be so many Church-governments, as there are humane Prudences.* 1.5 For so (if I be not mis-infor∣med) it is abroad in some townes that have dis∣charged Episcopacy. At S^t Galles in Switzerland

there the Ministers, and Lay-men rule in Common, but a Lay-man is president. But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men, and Ministers are joyned 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 doe 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 Ecclesi∣asticall) if there be no opinion of Religion, no de∣rivation from a divine authority, there will be sure to be no obedience, and indeed nothing but a cer∣tain, publick, calamitous irregularity. For why should they obay? Not for Conscience, for there is no derivation from divine authority. Not for feare, for they have not the power of the sword.

4. If there be such a thing as the power of the keyes, by Christ concredited to his Church, for the binding and loosing delinquents, and penitents re∣spectively on earth, then there is clearely a Court erected by Christ in his Church, for here is the dele∣gation of Iudges, Tu Petrus, v••s Apostoli, whatsoever ye shall bind. Here is a compulsory, ligaveritis; Here are the causes of which they take cognisance, Quodcun{que} viz. in materiâ scandali. For so it is li∣mited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Vniversall, Iohn. 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam, in causes, which are emergent from Christianity, ut sic, that secular ju∣risdictions may not be intrenched upon. But of this

hereafter. That Christ did in this place erect a Iu∣risdiction, and establish a government (besides the e∣vidence 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 loosing might be communi∣cated.

Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae, ut quae solve∣ret in terrâ, s••luta essent in coelo; scil. ut ut quisquis in Ecclesiâ ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet, se{que} ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio con∣stitutus eâdem side at{que} correctione sanaretur.

So * 1.6 S. Austin. And againe, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus insepar••bilitèr pertinentibus propter hujus vitae proce••••osissima gubernacu••um ad ligand•• & solvenda peccat•• claves regni coelorum primu•• A∣postolorum Petrus accepit; Quoniam nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat, solvit{que} peccata. S. Peter first received the government in the power of bind∣ing and loosing. But not he alone but all the Church, to wit, all succession, and ages of the Church. Vni∣versa Ecclesia, viz. in Pastoribus solis, as* 1.7 S. Chry∣sostom, In Episcopis & Presbyteris as† 1.8 S. Ierome. The whole Church, as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters. The same is affirmed bya 1.9 Tertullian, b 1.10 S. Cyprian,c 1.11 S. Chrysostome,d 1.12 S. Hilary,e 1.13 Prima∣sius, and generally by the Fathers of the elder, and Divines of the middle ages.

5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a pa∣rable of the sudden coming of the sonne 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 faithfull and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold 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 Masters absence? You are by office and de∣signation my stewards, to feed my servants, to go∣verne my house.

6. In Scripture, and other writers, to Feed, and to Governe, is all one when the office is either Po∣liticall or Oeconomicall,* 1.14 or Ecclesiasticall. So he FED them with a faithfull and true heart, and RULED them prudently with all his power. And S. Peter joynes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 together.* 1.15 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So does S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rulers or overseers in a flock. Pastors. It is ordinary. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Homer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euripides calls the Governors and guides of Cha∣riots, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And our blessed Saviour him∣selfe is called the Great sheapheard of our soules; and that we may know the intentum of that compella∣tion, it is in conjunction also with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He is therefore our sheapheard, for he is our Bishop, our Ruler, and Overseer. Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church, it is also as cer∣tain 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 lawes or langua∣ges:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith* 1.16 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 himselfe,* 1.17 in traditione clavium, in spiratione Spiritûs, in mis∣sione in Pentecoste. When Christ promised them the Keyes, he promised them power to bind and loose, when he breathed on them the holy Ghost, he gave them that actually, to which by the former promise they were intitled; and in the octaves of the Passion, he gave them the same authority, which he had received from his Father, and they were the faithfull and wise stewards whom the Lord made RULERS over his Houshold.* 1.18 But I shall not la∣bour much upon this. Their founding all the Chur∣ches 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 let∣ters 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 Apostolicall, their threat∣ning the Pastorall rod, their calling Synods and publick assemblies, their ordering rites and ceremo∣nies,

composing a Symbole as the tessera of Chri∣stianity, their publick reprehension of delinquents, and indeed the whole execution of their Aposto∣late is one continued argument of their superinten∣dency, and superiority of jurisdiction.

THis power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons;* 1.19 For when the Great sheapheard had reduced his wandring sheep into a fold, he would not leave them without guides to governe them, so long as the wolfe might possibly prey up∣on them, and that is, till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats. And this Christ intimates in that promise, Ero vobiscum (Apostolis) us{que} ad consummationem saeculi. Vobiscum; not with your persons, for they dyed long agoe, but vobiscum & v••stri similibus, with Apostles to the end of the world. And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetuall, Christ gave them a power of ordination, that by imposing hands on o∣thers they might impart that power which they re∣ceived from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary; something ordinary. Whatsoever was extraordinary, as immediate missi∣on, unlimited jurisdiction, and miraculous operati∣ons, that was not necessary to the perpetuall regi∣ment of the Church, for then the Church should faile when these priviledges extraordinary did cease. It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetuall assistance; not in speaking of tongues, not in doing

miracles, whether in Materiâ censurae, as delivering to Sathan; or, in materiâ misericordiae, as healing sick people; or in re Naturali, as in resisting the ve∣nome of Vipers, and quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise perpetuall assistance, for then it had been done, and still these signes should have followed them that believe. But we see they doe not. It followes then, that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world, and therefore there must remaine a power of giving faculty, and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that, in which Christ promised perpetuall assistance. For since this perpetuall assi∣stance could not be meant of abiding with their per∣sons, 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 tem∣porary as their persons. But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a succession must be constitu∣ted in the ordinary office of Apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office? Most certainly since the ex∣traordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of ••ence, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptizing, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unlesse men could be Christians that were never Christned, nourished

up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without calling of God and Ordination, have their sinnes pardoned without absolution, be mem∣bers and parts and sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Gover∣nour. These the Apostles had without all Questi∣on, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these then were the offices of the Apostolate, which Christ promi∣sed 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,* 1.20 and therefore (though in a very li∣mited sence) they may be called successores Aposto∣lorum, to wit, in the power of Baptizing, consecrating the Eucharist, and Preaching (an excellent example whereof, though we have none in Scripture, yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius, calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Com∣bination of Apostles) yet the Apostolate and Epis∣copacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministrati∣on, and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function.

1. The name was borrowed from the Pro∣phet David in the prediction of the Apostacy of Iudas,* 1.21 and Surrogation of S. Matthias; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His Bishoprick, that is, his A∣postolate

let another take. The same word according to the translation of the 70. is used by the Prophet I∣saiah, in an Evangelicall prediction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousnesse. Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros E∣piscopos, saith* 1.22 S. Hierome, herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himselfe calls Princes. And to this issue it is cited by S. Clement in his famous epistle to the Corinthi∣ans. But this is no waies unusuall in Scripture. For,

2. S. Iames the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle, and yet he was not in the number of the twelve, but he was Bishop of Ierusalem. 1. That S. Iames was called an Apostle appears by the testi∣mony of S. Paul,* 1.23 [But other Apostles saw I••none, save Iames the Lords Brother.] 2. That he was none of the twelve, appears also because among the twelve Apostles, there were but two Iames's. The sonne of Alpheus, and Iames the sonne of Zebedee, the Brother of Iohn. But neither of these was the Iames whom S. Paul calls the Lords brother.* 1.24 And this S. Paul intimates in making a distinct enumera∣tion of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection. First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500. Brethren, then to Iames, then to all the Apostles. So that here S. Iames is reckoned di∣stinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles, for there were (it seems) more of that dignity then the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of

* 1.25 Hegesippus, * S. Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierome. 3. That S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, and therefore called an A∣postle, appears by the often commemoration of his presidency, and singular eminency in holy Scrip∣ture. Priority of order is mentioned, Galat. 2. even before S. Peter, who yet was primus Apostolorum, naturâ unus homo, Cratiâunus Christianus, abundan∣tiore gratiâ unus idem{que} primus Apostolus;* 1.26 (as S. Au∣stin) yet in his own diocesse S. Iames had priority of order before him. v. 9. And when ¹ Iames, ² Ce∣phas, and ³ Iohn, &c. First Iames before Cephas i.e. S. Peter. S. Iames also was president of that Sy∣nod which the Apostles convocated at Ierusalem a∣bout the Question of circumcision; as is to be seen * 1.27 Act. 15. to him S. Paul made his addresse, Act. 21. to him the brethren carried him, where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters, there he was alwaies resident, and his seat fixt, and that he liv'd Bishop of Ierusalem for many years toge∣ther, is clearly testified by all the faith of the Pri∣mitive Fathers and Historians. But of this here∣after.

3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of th•• Philippians.* 1.28 I have sent unto you Epaphrodit•••• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, My com∣peere and your Apostle.* 1.29 Gradum Apostolatus rece∣pit Epaphroditus, saith Primasius, and what that is we are told by Theodoret, dictus Philippensium Apo∣stolus à S. Paulo, quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus? Be∣cause he also had received the office of being an A∣postle

among them, saith S. Ierome upon the same place; and it is very observeable, that those Apo∣stles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apostles of Iesus Christ, but those other men which were Bi∣shops of Churches, and called Apostles by Scri∣pture, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apostles of Churches, or sometime Apostles, alone, but never are intitled of Iesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but Iames the Lords Brother, Gal. 1. There S. Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely. But S. Paul calls himselfe of∣ten the Apostle of Iesus Christ, not of man, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ. So, Peter an Apostle of Iesus Christ, but S. Iames in his Epistle to the Iewes of the dispersion, writes not himselfe the A∣postle of Iesus Christ, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iames the servant of God and of the Lord Iesus Christ.

Further yet: S. Paul, although as having an im∣mediate calling from Christ to the office of Aposto∣late at large, calls himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ, yet when he was sent to preach to the Gen∣tiles by the particular direction indeed of the holy Ghost,* 1.30 but by Humane constitution, and impositi∣on of hands; in relation to that part of his office, and his cure of the uncircumcision, he limits his Apo∣stolate to his Diocesse and calls himselfe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.31 The Apostle of the Gentiles; as S. Peter for the same reason, and in the same modification is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.32 that is, the Apostle of those who were

of the Circumcision. And thus Epaphroditus is call∣ed the Apostle of the Philippians, who clearely was their Bishop (as I shall shew in the sequel) that is, he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocesse of Philippi. Pa••latim verò tempore procedente, & ali•• ab his quos Dominus eleger at ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat,* 1.33 dicens, ne∣cessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum, &c. So S. Ierome. In processe of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen, were ordained Apo∣stles; and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance, adding also that by the Apostles themselves Iudas and Silas were called Apostles.

4. Thus Titus, and some other with him,* 1.34 who came to Ierusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Apostles of the Chur∣ches. Apostles, I say, in the Episcopall sence. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immedi∣ate divine mission, but of Apostolike ordination, they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter. Ti∣tus was Bishop of Crete, and Epaphroditus of Phi∣lippi, and these were the Apostles, for Titus came with the Corinthian, Epaphroditus with the Colossi∣an liberality. Now these men were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, called, Messengers in respect of these Churches send∣ing them with their contributions. 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to wit, whose almes they carried, but simply 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Churches, viz. of their own of which they were Bishops. For if the title of [Apostle] had re∣lated

to their mission from these Churches, it is un∣imaginable that there should be no terme of relation expressed. 2. It is very cleare that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the severall Churches,* 1.35 yet S. Paul, not those Churches sent them, And we have sent with them our Brother, &c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches, not going from Corinth with the mony, but before they came thither from whence they were to be di∣spatch't in legation to Ierusalem.* 1.36 [If any enquire of Titus. . . . or the Brethren, they are the Apostles of the Church, and the glory of Christ.] So they were A∣postles before they went to Corinth, not for their being imployed in the transportation of their chari∣ty. So that it is plaine, 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 fixt residence, and superin∣tendency of their severall Churches.

BVt in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy,* 1.37 is clearer yet. For when the holy Spirit had sent seaven letters to the seaven Asian Bishops,* 1.38 the Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them, which say they are Apostles and are not, and hathfound themlyars. This Angell of the Church of Ephesus, as Antiquity hath taught us, was at that time Timo∣thy, or* 1.39 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 & counter∣feit himselfe S. Paul, or S. Peter. And if they had, yet little trying was needfull to discover their folly in such a case, and whether it was Timothy or Gajus he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory. Be∣sides the Apostles all were then dead, and he known to live in Patmos, known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam. These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apo∣stles, must dissemble an ordinary function, not an ex∣traordinary person. And indeed by the concurse of of story, place, and time, Diotrephes was the Man S. Iohn cheifly pointed at. For he seeing that of E∣phesus there had been an Episcopall chayre plac'd, and Timothy a long while posses'd of it, and* 1.40 per∣haps Gajus after him, if we may trust Dorotheus, and the like in some other Churches, and that S. Iohn had not constituted Bishops in all the other Chur∣ches of the lesser Asia, but kept the Iurisdiction to be ministred by himselfe, would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolicall or∣dination, obtruding himselfe upon the Church of Ephesus, so becoming 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a busy man in anothers Diocesse. This, and such impostors as this the Angell of the Church of Ephesus did try, and discover, and convict, and in it he was assisted by S. Iohn himselfe, as is intimated in S. Iohns third E∣pistle written to this Gajus [v. 9.] I wrote unto the Church (to wit of Asia) but Diotrephes who loveth

to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not.] Clearly this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would have been a Bishop. It was a matter of ambition, a quarrell for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him; and this also appeares further in that he exerci∣sed jurisdiction, and excommunication where he had nothing to doe, [v. 10.] He forbids them that would receive the Brethren, and casteth them out of the Church. So that here it is cleare, this false Apo∣stolate, was his ambitious seeking of Episcopall preheminence and jurisdiction without lawfull or∣dination. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that was his designe, He loved to be the first in the Church, esse Aposto∣lum, esse Episcopum, to be an Apostle, or a Bishop.

BVt this office of the ordinary Apostleship or E∣piscopacy, * 1.41 derives its fountain from a Rock; Christs own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters. For when our blessed Sa∣viour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching, Vocavit Discipulos suos, & elegit duodecem ex ipsis quos & Apostolos nomina∣vit, * 1.42 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 designa∣vit Dominus & alios septuaginta duos. That was his second election; the first were called Apostles, the second were not, and yet he sent them by two and two.

We heare but of one commission granted them, which when they had performed and returned

joyfull at their power over Divells, wee heare no more of them in the Gospell, but that their Names were written in heaven. Wee are likely therefore to heare of them after the passi∣on, if they can but hold their owne. And so we doe. For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together, and joyn'd them in Clericall commission by vertue of Christs first ordination of them, for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture re∣corded, before we find them doing Clericall offi∣ces. Ananias we read baptizing of Saul, Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria, and bapti∣zing his Converts; Others also we find, Presbyters at Ierusalem, especially at the first Councell, for there was Iudas sirnamed Iustus, and Silas, and S. Marke, and Iohn (a Presbyter,* 1.43 not an Apostle as Eu∣sebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas who tarri∣ed there till he was made Bishop of Ierusalem, these and diverse others, are reckoned to be of the num∣ber of the 72, by Eusebius and Dorotheus.

Here are plainly two offices of Ecclesiasticall Mi∣nisteries. Apostles and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them.* 1.44 These were distinct, and not temporary, but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearely a Di∣vine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons nei∣ther of them. Here let us fix a while.

1. THen; It is cleare in Scripture that the Apo∣stles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church, and therefore to be committed to their successors, which

acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not doe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith S. Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy.* 1.45 The law of God hath reserved the Greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order.

First,* 1.46 the Apostles impos'd hands in Ordinati∣ons, which the 72 did not, the case is knowne, Act. 6. The Apostles called the Disciples, willing them to choose seaven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poore, They did so, and set them before the twelue Apo∣stles, so they are specified and numbred vers. 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed, they lay'd their hands on them. They, not the Disciples, not the 72 who were there actually present, and seaven of them were then ordayn'd to this Ministery, for they were not now ordayn'd to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the* 1.47 Councell of Constantinople calls them, and that these were of the number of the 72. Disciples, Epiphanius bears witnesse.* 1.48 He sent other 72. to preach 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which Number were those seaven ordained and set over the widdowes. And the same is intimated by S. Chrysostome,* 1.49 if I understand him right, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What dignity had these seaven here ordained? of Deacons? No; for this dispensation is made by Priests not Dea∣cons;* 1.50 and Theophylact more clearely repeating the

words of S. Chrysostome, pro more suo, addes this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The name and dignity of these seaven was no lesse, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithfull people. Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostome and Theophylact; of the number of the 72. saith E∣piphanius. But however, it is cleare that the 72. were present, for the whole multitude of the Dis∣ciples was as yet there resident, they were not yet sent abroad, they were not scattered with persecu∣tion till the Martyrdome of S. Stephen, [but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples] to them about this affaire. vers. 2. But yet them∣selves only did ordaine them.

2. An instance paralell to this, is in the impo∣sition of hands upon S. Paul and Barnabas,* 1.51 in the first ordination that was held at Antioch. [Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch cer∣tain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas and Sime∣on, and Lucius, and Manäen, and Saul. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, while these men were Ministring, the holy Ghost said to them, separate me Barnabas and Saul.] They did so, they [fasted, they prayed, they laid their hands on them, and sent them away. So they being sent forth by the holy Ghost, departed into Seleucia.] This is the story, now let us make our best on't. Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands complete, and that was said to

be done by the holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch. For they sent them away, and yet the next words are, so they being sent forth by the holy Ghost. So that here was the thing done, and that by the Prophets alone, and that by the com∣mand of the Holy Ghost, and said to be his act. Well! but what were these Prophets? They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch,* 1.52 not such as Agabus, and the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, Prophets of prediction extraordinary, but Pro∣phets of ordinary office and ministration, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prophets and Teachers and Ministers. More then ordinary Ministers, for they were Doctors or Teachers, and that's not all, for they were Prophets too. This even at first sight is more then the ordinary office of the Presbytery. We shall see this cleare enough in S. Paul* 1.53 where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors, before Evangelists, next to Apostles, that is next to such Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as S. Paul there expresses it, next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission. And these are there∣fore Apostles too, Apostles secundi or dinis, none of the twelve, but such as S. Iames, and Epaphroditus, and Barnabas and S. Paul himselfe. To be sure they were such Prophets as S. Paul and Barnabas, for they are reckoned in the number by S. Luke, for here it was that S. Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ, yet he had particular ordinati∣on to this Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles. It is evident then what Prophets these were, they

they were at the least more then ordinary Presby∣ters, and therefore they impos'd hands, and they on∣ly. And yet to make the businesse up compleat, S. Marke was amongst them, but he impos'd no hands, he was there as the Deacon and Minister [vers. 5.] but he medled not, S. Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets, such as S, Paul himselfe was, and so did the Holy Ghost too, but neither did S. Marke who was an Evangelist, and one of the 72 Disciples (as he is reckoned in the Primitive Cata∣logues by Eusebius and Dorotheus) nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters, that were lesse then Prophets, that is, who were not more then meere Presbyters.

The summe is this: Imposition of hands is a duty & office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, ne Gens sit Vnius aetatis, least it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fix't upon the Apostles and Apostolike men, and not communicated to the 72 Disciples or Pres∣byters; for the Apostles, and Apostolike men, did so de facto, and were commanded to doe so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct, and superiour to that of Presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the Clergy, as the Church it selfe.

2. THe Apostles did impose hands for confirma∣tion of Baptized people,* 1.54 and this was a per∣petuall act of a power to be succeeded to, and yet not communicated, nor executed by the 72, or any other meere Presbyter. That the Apostles did con∣firme Baptized people, and others of the inferiour Clergie could not, is beyond all exception cleare in the case of the Samaritan Christians. Acts. 8. For when S. Philip had converted, and Baptized the Men of Samaria, the Apostles sent Peter and Iohn to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. S. Philip he was an Evangelist, he was one of the 72 Disciples,* 1.55 a Presbyter, and appoint∣ed to the same ministration that S. Stephen was a∣bout the poore Widdowes, yet he could not doe this, the Apostles must and did. This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands, was not for a miraculous gift, but an ordinary Grace. For S. Philip could, and did doe miracles enough, but this Grace he could not give, the Grace of consigning or confirmation. The like case is in Acts. 19. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus, S. Paul confirmed them, giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. The Apostles did it; not the twelue only, but Aposto∣like men, the other Apostles. S. Paul did it. S. Phi∣lip could not, nor any of the 72, or any other meere Presbyters ever did it, that we find in Holy Scrip∣ture.

Yea; but this imposition of hands, was for a Mi∣raculous

issue, for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues and pro∣phesied, which effect because it is ceased, certainly the thing was temporary and long agoe expired. 1. Not for this reason to be sure. For extraordinary effects may be temporary, when the function which they attest may be eternall, and therefore are no signes of an extraordinary Ministery. The Apo∣stles preaching was attended by Miracles, and ex∣traordinary conversions of people [

ut in exordio, Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effe∣ctus & Spiritûs Sancti gratia, ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divi∣nae religionis adduci, & praedicantium verbis nonesse tardiorem audientium fidem,

] as * 1.56 Eusebius tels of the successe 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 curs'd and anathematiz'd a delinquent, he dyed suddainly, as in the case of Ananias and Sa∣phira, whom S. Peter slew with the word of his Mi∣nistery, and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease, it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church. When the Apostles did excom∣municate a sinner, he was presently delivered over to Sathan to be buffeted, that is, to be afflicted with corporall punishments, and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodyes of persons excommunicate, yet the power of excommunicati∣on I hope still remaines in the Church, and the

power of the Keyes is not also gone: So also in the power of confirmation,* 1.57 which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing, yet like other mi∣racles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith, these miracles at first did confirme the functi∣on, and the faith for ever.

Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptiz'd people, was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles, appeares 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 Christendome. Effundam de spiritu meo super om∣nem carnem, so it was in the Prophecy. For the pro∣mise is to you and to your Children 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.58 and to all them that are a farre 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 pre∣sence, and must therefore ex vi intentionis be rema∣nent till Christ's comming againe. Now then 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 Mi∣nistery. Not the first; for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles. If the second (as it is most

certaine so) then the mayne Question is evicted, viz: that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles, which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers, nor of any, but them∣selves 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 faithfull after Baptisme, Quod n••nunc in confirmandis Neophyt is manûs impositio tribuit singu∣lis, hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio, in credentium populo donavit Vniversis,* 1.59 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 Universall concernement, this way also of it's communication, to wit, by Apostolicall imposition of hands, is also perpetuum ministerium, to be suc∣ceeded to and to abide for ever.

2 This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized people is so farre from be∣ing a temporary Grace, and to determine with the persons of the Apostles, that it is a fundamentall point of Christianity, an essentiall ingredient to it's cōposition.* 1.60 S. Paul is my Author. [Therefore lea∣ving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us goe on unto perfection, not laying againe the foundation of Repentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrine of baptisme, and of laying on of hands.

&c. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in S. Pauls Catechisme. Now, imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministra∣tions. ¹ For ordination, & ² for this whatsover 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 as∣cension. Iohn. 20. But the promise of the H. Ghost the comforter [the Paraclete, I say, not the Orday∣ner or fountaine of Priestly order, that] was not gi∣ven till the day of Pentecost; and besides, it was promis'd to all Christian people, and the other was given onely to the Clergy.

* Adde to this, that S. Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progresse from this to per∣fection (as he calls it) that is to higher mysteries, and then his discourse is immediately of the Priest∣hood Evangelicall, which is Originally in Christ, ministerially in the Clergy; so that unlesse we will either confound the termes of his progresse, or ima∣gine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy, the foundation of Christs Priesthood, and not rather contrary, it is cleare that by imposition of hands, S. Paul meanes not ordination, and therefore confir∣mation, there being no other ordinary Ministery of imposition of hands but these two specifyed in Ho∣ly Scripture. For, as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony, and as for healing in which A∣nanias and the Apostles us'd it; the first is clearely

no Principle or fundamentall point of Christianity; and the Second is confessedly extraordinary, there∣fore the argument is still firme upon it's first princi∣ples.

3. Lastly, the Primitive Church did de facto, and beleiv'd themselves to be tyed de jure to use this rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptisme.

S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. Iohn had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the faith of Christendome,* 1.61 Qui (saith S. Clement) eum bap∣tismi Sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Do∣mini tanquam perfectâ & tutâ ejus animi custodiâ ob∣signavit. The Bishop first baptiz'd him, then con∣sign'd him.* 1.62 Iustin Martyr saies (speaking pro more Ecclesiae, according to the Custome of the Church) that when the mysteries of baptisme were done, then the faithfull are consign'd, or confirm'd.

S. Cyprian relates to this story of S. Philip and the Apostles,* 1.63 and gives this account of the whole affayre,

Et idcircò quia legitimum & Ecclesiasticum baptismum consequuti fuerant, baptizarieos ultrà non oportebat; Sed tantummodò id quod deerat, id à Petro & Iohanne factum erat, ut oratione pro cis ha∣bitâ & manu impositâ invocaretur, & infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quo{que} apud nos ge∣ritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptiz antur, Praepositis Ec∣clesiae offer antur, ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur, & signa∣culo Dominico confirmentur.

S. Peter and S. Iohn

by imposing their hands on the Converts of Sama∣ria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptisme: and this is to this day done in the Church, for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops, and by imposition of their hands ob∣taine the Holy Ghost.

But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendome, may see it in the decretall Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fa∣bianus recorded by Eusebius; in the* 1.64 Epistle writ∣ten to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops, under the name of S. Clement, in the* 1.65 Epistle of Vrban P. and Mar∣tyr, a 1.66 in Tertullian, inb 1.67 S. Austen, and in S. Cyrill of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Cate∣chi••me is concerning Confirmation. This only. The Catholicks, whose Christian prudence it was, in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks, least their poyson should infect like a Pest, layd it in Novatus dish as a crime, He was baptized in his bed, and was not confirmed, Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri, therefore he could ne∣ver receive the gift of the holy Ghost. So Corneli∣us in the forequoted Epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the beliefe of Christendome, that the holy Ghost was by no ordinary ministery given to faithfull people after Baptisme, but only by Apo∣stolicall, or Episcopall consignation and imposition of hands.

What also the faith of Christendome was con∣cerning the Minister of confirmation, and that Bi∣shops

only could doe it, I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse. Here the Scene lies in Scripture, where it is cleare that S. Philip, one of the 72. Disciples, as antiquity reports him, and an E∣vangelist and a Disciple, as Scripture also expresses him, could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father, and ministeriall giving of the holy Ghost, but the Apostles must goe to doe it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle, and yet this is an ordina∣ry Ministery which de jure ought, & de facto alwaies was continued in the Church. Therefore there must alwaies be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to doe it, that is, an office above Presbyters, for in Scripture they could never doe it, and this is it which we call Episcopacy.

3. THe Apostles were rulers of the whole Church,* 1.68 & each Apostle respectively of his severall Diocesse, when he would fixe his chaire; & had superintendency over the Presbyters, and the people, and this by Christs donation, the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this.* 1.69 Sicut misit me Pa∣ter, sic ego mitto vos. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis,* 1.70 & ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permitten∣tis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, said Clarus à Musculâ, the Bishop in the Councell of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin. But however it is evident in

Scripture, that the Apostles had such superinten∣dency 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 Pa∣ter, &c. As my Father sent, so I send. You, my A∣postles whom I have chosen. This was not said to Presbyters, for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ, but at their first mission to preach repentance, I say no commission at all, they were not spoken to, they were not present. Now then consider. Suppose that as Aërius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege, another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters, what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Di∣vine institution of them as a distinct order from A∣postles or Bishops. Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach, but that commis∣sion was temporary and expired before the cruci∣fixion for ought appeares in Scripture. If it be said the Apostles did ordaine Presbyters in every City, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they ordained Deacons at Ierusalem, and in all established Chur∣ches, and yet this will not tant' amount to an imme∣diate Divine institution for Deacons, and how can it then for Presbyters? If we say a constant Catho∣lick 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 E∣piscopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enimies of it, for the same tradition, if that be ad∣mitted for good probation, is for Episcopall prehe∣minence over Presbyters, as will appeare in the se∣quel. 2. Though no use be made of this advantage, yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered, that it can never bee proved from Scripture, that Christ made the Apostles Priests first, and then Bi∣shops or Apostles, but only that Christ gave them severall commissions, and parts of the office Apo∣stolicall, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of warre, and say that the Pres∣byterate, as a distinct order from the ordinary office of Apostleship, is not of Divine institution, the proof of it would be harder then for the Divine in∣stitution of Episcopacy. Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Cleric••••l offices,* 1.71 there is no enumeration of Presbyters,* 1.72 but of Apostles there is; and the other members of the induction are of guifts of Christianity, or par•••• of the Apostolate, and either must inferre many more orders, then the Church ever yet admitted of, or none, distinct from the Apostolate, insomuch as A∣postles were Pastors, and Teachers, and Evange∣lists, and Rulers, and had the guift of tongues, of

healing, and of Miracles. This thing is of great consideration, and this use I will make of it: That either Christ made the 72 to be Presbyters, and in them instituted the distinct order of Presbyte∣rate, as the ancient Church alwaies did believe, or else he gave no distinct commission for any such di∣stinct order. If the second be admitted, then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution, but of Apostolicall only, as is the Order of Deacons, and the whole plenitude of power is in the order A∣postolicall alone, and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did Deacons with a lesse. But if the first be said, then the commission to the 72 Presby∣ters being only of preaching that we find in Scri∣pture, all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolicall ordinance, and then al∣though the Apostles did admit them in partem solli∣citudinis, yet they did not admit them in plenitudi∣nem potestatis, for then they must have made them Apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolicall institution neither.

I care not which part be chosen, one is certain; but if either of them be true, then since to the Apo∣stles only, Christ gave a plenitude of power, it fol∣lowes, that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolicall; or if they have jurisdiction they doe derive it à fonte Apostolo∣rum,

and then the Apostles have superiority of Iu∣risdiction over Presbyters, because Presbyters on∣ly have it by delegation Apostolicall. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture, by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters, then what I have specified,) I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practise of Christendome not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary of∣fice of Apostleship) but that Presbyters have no Iurisdiction essentiall to their order, but derivative only from Apostolicall preheminence.

2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Iurisdiction over Presbyters, for Ae∣qualis aequalem coercere non potest, saith the Law. Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Pres∣byter, and a Bishop Would be, that for his perem∣ptory rejection of some faithfull people from the Catholick communion without cause, and without authority, S. Iohn the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gajus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 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 punish't his delinquency.

3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new ordination, as Matthias succee∣ded Iudas, who before his new ordination was one of the 72. asa 1.73 Eusebius,b 1.74 Epiphanius, andc 1.75 S. Ierome

affirme, and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Iesus; S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome, S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. Iames at Ierusalem, S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea, & diverse others of the 72, reckoned by Dorotheus, Eusebius, & others of the Fathers, did governe the severall Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not. Now it is cleare that he that receives no more power after the Apostles, then he had under them, can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge, or Churches. It followes then, since (as will more fully appeare 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, there∣fore greater then the Presbyters had before they did succeed. When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles, I meane, not as Presbyters, but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops, so they succee∣ded, and so they prove an evidence of fact, for a su∣periority of Iurisdiction in the Apostolicall Cler∣gy. *** Now that this superiority of Iurisdiction was not temporary, but to be succeeded in, appeares from Reason, and from ocular demonstration, or of the thing done.

1. If superiority of Iurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolicall for the regiment of the Church, there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession, since upon the emergency of Schismes and Heresies which were

foretold should multiply in descending ages, go∣vernment and superiority of jurisdiction, unity of su∣premacy, and coërcion 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 perpetuall (not so as to have* 1.76 all that which was personall, and tem∣porary, but so as to have no other) for that, and that only is of Divine institution which Christ commit∣ted to the Apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, We can shew no Divine Autho∣rity for our government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it too, or be call'd usurpers. For ei∣ther the Apostles did governe the Church as Christ commanded them, or not. If not, then they fayl'd in the founding of the Church, and the Church is not built upon a Rock. If they did (as most certain∣ly they did) then either the same disparity of juris∣diction must be retayn'd, or else we must be govern∣ned with an Unlawfull and unwarranted equality, because not by that which only is of immediate di∣vine institution; and then it must needs be a fine government, where there is no authority, and where no man is superiour.

3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himselfe, and con∣firmed by the Holy Ghost in fayrest intimation. I meane the seaven Angel-Presidents of the seaven A∣sian Churches. If these seaven Angels were seaven

Bishops, that is, Prelates or Governours of these seaven Churches, in which it is evident and con∣fessed of all sides, there were many Presbyters, then it is certaine that a Superiority of Iurisdiction was intended by Christ himselfe, and given by him, in∣somuch as he is the fountaine of all power derived to the Church; For Christ writes to these seaven Churches, and directs his Epistles to the seaven Go∣vernours of these Churches calling them Angels, which it will hardly be suppos'd he would have done, if the function had not been a ray of the Sunne of righteousnesse, they had not else been Angels of light, nor starres held in Christ's owne right hand.

This is certaine, that the function of these An∣gels (whatsoever it be) is a Divine institution. Let us then see what is meant by these starres and An∣gels.* 1.77 [The seaven starres are the Angells of the sea∣ven Churches, and the seaven Candlesticks are the seaven Churches.]

1. Then it is evident, that although the Epistles were sent with a finall intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocesse, with an [Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesijs] yet the personall direction was not to the whole Church, for the whole Church is cal∣led the Candlestick, and the superscription of the E∣pistles is not to the seaven Candlesticks, but to the seaven starres which are the Angels of the seaven Churches, viz. the lights shining in the Candle∣sticks. By the Angell therefore is not, cannot be mean't the whole Church.

2. It is plaine that by the Angel is mean't the Governour of the Church, ^1. Because of the title of eminency, The Angel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Messen∣ger, the Legate, the Apostle of the Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For these words, Angel, or Apostle, although they signifie Mission or Legation, yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent. As in the examples before specified. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Their Angels. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Apo∣stles of the Churches. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and diverse others. Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them, and of E∣minence in relation to them to whom they are sent, shewes that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively. ^2. Because acts of jurisdiction are con∣credited to him; as, not to suffer false Apostles; So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, which is clear∣ly a power of cognisance and coërcion in causis Cle∣ricorum: to be watchfull and strengthen the things that remaine; as to the Angel of the Church in Sar∣dis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The first is the office of Rulers, for they Watch for your Soules;* 1.78 And the second, of Apostles, and Apostolike men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iudas and Silas confirm'd the Brethren, for these men, although they were but of the 72 at first, yet by this time were made A∣postles and [cheife men among the Brethren] S. Paul also was joyned in this worke,* 1.79 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He went up and downe confirming the Churches. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Paul.* 1.80 To con∣firme

the Churches, and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government, these were offices of power and jurisdiction, no lesse then Epis∣copall or Apostolicall; and besides, the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Dio∣cesse [Thou hast a few names even in Sardis] they were the Bishops people, the Angel had a right to them. And good reason that the people should be his, for their faults are attributed to him, as to the Angel of Pergamus, and diverse others, and there∣fore they are deposited in his custody, He is to be their Ruler and Pastor, and this is called his Mini∣stery. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have knowne thy Ministery. His office therefore was Clericall, it was an Angel∣Minister, and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest, even all the whole Church, since he was charg'd with all.

3. By the Angel is mean't a singular person, for the reprehensions and the commendations respe∣ctively imply personall delinquency, or suppose personall excellencyes. Adde to this that the com∣pellation is singular, and of determinate number, so that we may as well multiply Churches as per∣sons, for the seaven Churches had but seaven starres, and these seaven starres were the Angels of the sea∣ven Churches. And if by seaven starres they may meane 70 times seaven starres (for so they may if they begin to multiply) then by one starre they must meane many starres, and so they may multi∣ply Churches too, for there were as many Churches

as starres, and no more Angels then Churches, and it is as reasonable to multiply these seaven Churches into 7000, as every starre into a Constellation, or every Angel into a Legion.

But besides the Exigency of the thing it selfe, these seaven Angels are by Antiquity called the sea∣ven Governours or Bishops of the seaven Churches, & their very names are commemorated. Vnto these seaven Churches S. Iohn, saith Arethas,* 1.81 reckoneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an equall number of Angel-Governours, and Oecumenius in his scholia upon this place, saith the very same words. Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelli∣gere,* 1.82 eò quòd Angelus Nuntius interpretatur, saith S. Ambrose, and againe, Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis. Let the wo∣man* 1.83 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 An∣gels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn. Di∣vinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ec∣clesiae so S. Austin.* 1.84 By the voyce of God the Bi∣shop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel. Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches. S. Policarpe was one to be sure, a∣pud Smyrnam & Episcopus & Martyr,* 1.85 saith Eusebi∣us, He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna; And he had good authority for it, for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after, was himselfe an Angell of the Church of Ephesus,* 1.86 and he also

quotes S. Irenaeus for it,* 1.87 & out of the Encyclicall E∣pistle of the Church of Smyrna it selfe, and besides these authorities it is attested by S.† 1.88 Ignatius, and * 1.89 Tertullian. S. Timothy was another Angell, to wit, of the Church of Ephesus; to be sure had beene, and most likely was still surviving. Antipas is rec∣koned by Name in the Revelation, and he had been the Angel of Pergamus,* 1.90 but before this booke writ∣ten he was turned from an Angel to a Saint. Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis. Melito quo{que} Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, & Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens ce∣leberrimi inter caeteros habebantur,* 1.91 saith Eusebius. These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation, for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and writ after the Revelation, for he writ a treatise of it, as saith Eusebius. However, at least some of these were then, and all of these about that time were Bi∣shops of these Churches, and the Angels S. Iohn speakes of were such who had Iurisdiction over their whole Diocesse, therefore these, or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters, such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fix'd them in the Churches like lights set on a Candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house.

The Summe of all is this; that Christ did insti∣tute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for the whole commission was given to them in as great

and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders, a power of jurisdi∣ction and authority to governe the Church: and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetuall, and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, and though the personall mission was not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching, which was a very limited commis∣sion. There was all the immediate Divine instituti∣on of Presbyterate as a distinct order, that can be fairely pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the A∣postles did admit in partem sollicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolicall, did give them power of administring Sacraments, of ab∣solving sinners, of governing the Church in con∣junction and subordination to the Apostles, of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem Ministerii, but the exercise, and the actuating of this capacity they had from the A∣postles. So that not by Divine ordination, or im∣mediate 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 Ho∣ly Ghost, as were all other acts of Apostolicall mi∣nistration, and particularly the institution of the o∣ther order, viz. of Deacons. This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commis∣sion given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards confirme by the practise of the Catholick Church, and so vindicate the practises of the present Church, from the common prejudi∣ces that disturbe us, for by this account, Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, but the only order that derives immediately from Christ.

For the present only,* 1.92 I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples. Palmae sunt isti qui nut riuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apo∣stolis. Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit, e∣rant tamen duodecem illis inferiores, & posteà illorum Discipuli & sectatores. The Apostles are the twelve fountaines, and the 72 are the palmes that are nou∣rished by the waters of those fountaines. For though Christ also ordain'd the 72, yet they were inferior to the Apostles, and afterwards were their followers and Disciples.

I know no objection to hinder a conclusion; only two or three words out of Ignatius, are pretended against the maine question, viz. to prove that he, although a Bishop, yet had no Apostolicall autho∣rity,* 1.93 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I doe not command this as an Apostle, (for what am I, and what is my

Fathers house, that I should compare my selfe with them) but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor. But this answers it selfe, if we consider to whom he speakes it. Not to his own Church of Antioch, for there he might command as an Apostle, but to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉〈◊〉 might not, they were no part of his Diocesse, he was not their Apostle, and then be∣cause he did not equall the Apostles in their com∣mission extraordinary, in their personall privi∣ledges, and in their universall jurisdiction, therefore he might not command the Philadelphians, being another Bishops charge, but admonish them with the freedome of a Christian Bishop, to whom the soules of all faithfull people were deare and preci∣ous. So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office, this hinders not, and I know nothing else pretended, and that Antiquity is clearely on this side, is the next businesse.

For, hitherto the discourse hath been of the im∣mediate Divine institution of Episcopacy, by argu∣ments derived from Scripture; I shall only adde two more from Antiquity,* 1.94 and so passe on to tradition Apostolicall.

1. THE beliefe of the primitive Church is, that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the A∣postles, and Presbyters of the 72, and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine in∣stitution 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 se∣lect,

enough to give faire evidence of a Catholick tradition.

S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular,* 1.95 Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, Er SUCCESSO∣RES EORUM us{que} ad nos . . . Etenim si recondita my∣steria 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 severall Chur∣ches, appointing them their successors, and most cer∣tainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew; they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches, and left to be their suc∣cessors in the same power and authority themselves had.

Tertullian reckons Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolicall,* 1.96 apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident. Apostolicall they are from their founda∣tion, and by their succession, for Apostles did found them, and Apostles, or men of Apostolick authori∣ty still doe governe them.

S. Cyprian; Hoc enim vel maximè Frater,* 1.97 & labo∣ramus & laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino, & per Apostolos NOBIS SUCCESSORIBUS traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus. We must pre∣serve the Vnity commanded us by Christ, and delive∣red by his Apostles to us their Successors. To us Cypri∣an 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,* 1.98 sed dolens profero, cum te Iudicem Dei constituas & Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes prae∣positos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt, qui vos audit, me audit, &c. Christ said to his Apo∣stles, and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence, he that heareth you heareth mee.

Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop, spoken in the Councell of Carthage and re∣peated by S. Austin,* 1.99 Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Iesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis & ipsis so∣lis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gu∣bernantes. Nos successimus. We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power. He spake it in full Councell in an assembly of Bishops, and himselfe was a Bishop.

The Councell of Rome under S. Sylvester speak∣ing 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,* 1.100 shewes the difference of the Catholicks honouring, and the Hereticks dis∣advantaging that sacred order. Apud nos (saith he) Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episco∣pus tertius est. Bishops with us [Catholicks] have

the place or authority of Apostles, but with them [Montanists] Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist, pro Pa∣tribus nati sunt tibi filii, S. Hierome, and diverse o∣thers of the Fathers make this glosse, Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant; The Apostles are Fathers, instead of whom Bishops doe succeed, whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands. So S. Hie∣rome, S. Austin, and Euthymius upon the 44. Psal. aliàs 45.

But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles,* 1.101 which would doe very well now also to be considered. Si solis Apo∣stolis dixit, qui vos spernit me spernit, spernite nos: si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos, & vocavit nos, & in eorum loco constituit nos, videte ne spernatis nos. It was good counsell not to despise Bishops, for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protected by that saying, he that de∣spiseth you, despiseth mee. I said it was good coun∣sell, especially if besides all these, we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony, Potestas anathematizan∣di ab Apostolis ad successores eorum nimirum Episco∣pos transiit. A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors, even to Bishops.

S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quos∣dam dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Episcopi sunt,* 1.102 He hath given Apostles,* 1.103 that is, he hath given some Bishops. That's down right, and this came not by chance

from him; he doubles his assertion. Caput ita{que} 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 Iudâ, & Episcopatum ejus ac∣cipiat alter. And a third time.* 1.104 Numquid omnes A∣postoli? verum est; Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episco∣pus. Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Am∣brose, when hee spake of their ordinary offices; which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycra∣tes of the Martyrdome of Timothy in Photius,* 1.105 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephesus by S. Paul, and there enthron'd. To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity. S. Basil calls a Bishoprick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Theodoret.* 1.106 An Apostolicall presidency. The summe is the same which S. Peter himselfe taught the Church, as S. Clement his Scholler, or some other primitive man in his name reports of him. Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Do∣minum docuisse dicebat,* 1.107 & 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 far∣ther satisfied concerning Catholick consent, for Bi∣shops succession to Apostles in their order and or∣dinary office, he may see it ina 1.108 Pacianus the renow∣ned

Bishop of Barcinona, inb 1.109 S. Gregory,c 1.110 S. Iohn Damascen, in S. Sixtus the first his second decretall Epistle, and most plentifully ind 1.111 S. Caelestine writ∣ing to the Ephesine Councell, in the Epistle ofe 1.112 A∣nacletus de Patriarchis & Primatibus &c. Inf 1.113 Isidore, and ing 1.114 Venerable Bede. His words are these, sicut duodecem Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere si∣mul & demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet: sic & 72 fi∣guram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est, tamet si primis Ecclesiae temporibus, ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est, utri{que} Presbyteri, & utri{que} vocabantur Epis∣copi, quorum unum scientiae maturitatem, aliud in∣dustriam curae Pastoralis significat. Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bi∣shops; so the 72 of Presbyters, though at first they had names in common. Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters, and their Prelates or Superiours.

TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo succes∣sors of S. Peter.* 1.115 So S. Cyprian. Dominus noster cu∣jus praecepta metuere & observare debemus, Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suaerationem disponens in Evan∣gelio, loquitur & dicit Petro, ego tibi dico, Quia tu es Petrus, &c. Inde per temporum & successionum vi∣ces, Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit,* 1.116 ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, &c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopall dignity, he said to Peter, thou art Peter,

and on this rock will I build my Church. Hence comes the order of Bishops, and the constitution or being of the Church, that the Church be founded upon Bishops. &c.

The same also S Ierome intimate's,* 1.117 Non est facilè stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri. It is not a small thing, to stand in the place of Paul, to obtaine the de∣gree of Peter, so he, while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Epis∣copall 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, Cappa∣docia, Asia, and Bithynia. Similia enim Successori∣bus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta, saith Theodoret,* 1.118 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 rur∣sus Petrus Ananiam & Saphiram fraudantes de pre∣cio agri enecavit: ita & Basilius, locum Petri obti∣nens ejas{que} paritèr authoritatem libertatem{que} partici∣pans, suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejus{que} filium morte mulctavit. As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira, So Basil did to Valens and his Sonne for the same delinquency, for he had the place, liberty, and authority of S. Peter.

Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter,* 1.119 and Gildas sirnamed the wise, saith that all evill Bishops whatsoever doe with un∣hallowed and uncleane feete usurpe the seate of S. Peter. But this thing is of Catholike beleife, and of this use.* 1.120 If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternall & to be succeeded in, and this office Su∣perior

to Presbyters, and not onely of Divine in∣stitution, but indeed the onely order which can clearely show an immediate Divine commission for it's power and authority (as I have proved of the function Apostolicall) then those which doe suc∣ceed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Aposto∣late, have the same institution and authority the A∣postles had, as much as the successors of the Pres∣byters have with the first Presbyters, and perhaps more.

For in the Apostolicall ordinations, they did not proceed as the Church since hath done. Them∣selves had the whole Priesthood, the whole com∣mission of the Ecclesiasticall power and all the offi∣ces. Now they in their ordayning assistant Mini∣sters, did not in every ordination give a distinct order, as the Church hath done since the Apostles. For they ordayned some to distinct offices, some to particular places, some to one part, some to ano∣ther part of Clericall imployment, as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordain'd by imposition of hands to goe to the Churches of the Uncircumci∣sion, so was Barnabas: S. Iohn, and Iames, and Cephas to the Circumcision, and there was scarce any publike designe or Grand imployment but the Apostolike men had a new ordination to it, a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles. So that the Apostolicall ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were onely a giving of parti∣lar commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolicall calling as they would

please to imploy them in. Nay sometimes their or∣dinations were onely a delivering of Iurisdiction when the persons ordayned had the order before, as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas.* 1.121 Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spirituall offices, and it is very pertinent to this Question. For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher then Apostolicall ordinance; and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authoriz'd; for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now, and sometimes more, as to Iudas and Silas, and diverse others, who there∣fore were more then meere Presbyters as the word is now us'd.

* The result is this. The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle, so is a Deacon, a lesser part, so is an Evan∣gelist, so is a Prophet, so is a Doctor, so is a helper, or a Surrogate in Government, but these will not be called orders, every one of them will not I am sure, at least not made distinct orders by Christ, for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man, or to distinguish them into so many men, as there are offices, or to unite more or fewer of them. All these I say, clearely make not distinct orders, and why are not all of them of the same consideration? I would be answered from Grounds of Scripture. For there we fix as yet.

* Indeed the Apostles did ordaine such men, and scattered their power at first, for there was so much imployment in any one of them, as to require

one man for one office; but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons, and called them two distinct orders. But yet if we speak properly & according to the Exigence of Divine institution, there is Vnum Sacerdotiam, one Priesthood appoin∣ted 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 insti∣tution, as the power to baptize, to preach, to con∣secrate, to absolve, to Minister, yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men, so much lesse to another, that is onely of Apostolicall ordinance. For the Apostles might have given to some onely a power to absolve, to some onely to consecrate, to some onely to baptize. We see that to Deacons they did so. They had onely a power to baptize and preach, whether all Evangelists had so much or no, Scripture does not tell us.

* But is to some men they had onely given a power to use the Keyes, or made them officers spirituall to restore such as are overtaken in a fault, and not to consecrate the Eucharist, (for we see these powers are distinct, and not relative and of necessary conjunction, no more then baptizing and consecrating) whether or no had those men who have only a power of absolving or consecrating res∣pectively, whether (I say) have they the order of a

Presbyter? If yea, then now every Preist hath two orders besides the order of Deacon, for by the pow∣er of Consecration he hath the power of a Presby∣ter, and what is he then by his other power? But if such a man ordayn'd with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter, then let any man shew me where it is ordayned by Christ, or indeed by the Apostles, that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers, and that these were called Presbyters. I only leave this to be con∣sidered.

* But all the Apostolicall power we find insti∣tuted by Christ, and we also find a necessity, that all that power should be succeeded in, and that all that power should be united in one order, for he that hath the highest, viz. a power of ordination, must needs have all the other, else he cannot give them to any else, but a power of ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetuall.

So that, we have cleare evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetuall order of Apostleship, mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it, as now it is in the Church; but for the Apostolate, it is beyond ex∣ception. And to this Bishops doe succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from Scripture, and be∣cause [no Scirpture is of private interpretation] I have attested it with the Catholike testimony of the Primitive Fathers, calling Episcopacy, the Apo∣stolate, and Bishops successors of S. Peter in parti∣cular, and of all the Apostles in general in their ordi∣nary

offices in which they were Superior to the 72, the Antecessors of the Presbyterate.

One objection, I must cleare. For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles, and Successors of the Apostles, as in Ignatius, in Irenaeus, in S. Hierome. I answer.

1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmaticall resolution or interpretation of Scripture, as the Bishops are in the examples above alleaged; but by allusion, and participation at the most. For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of baptizing, consecrating, and absol∣ving in privato foro, but this is but part of the Apo∣stolicall power, and no part of their office as Apo∣stles were superiour to Presbyters.

2. It is observeable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church, but in subordination, and derivation from the Bishop, and therefore they are never said to succeed in Cathedris Apostolorum, in the Aposto∣lick Sees.

3. The places which I have specifyed, and they are all I could ever meete with, are of peculiar answer. For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis,* 1.122 he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests, the Colledge, or combination of Apostles. But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles, so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resem∣blance with God. Episcopus typum Dei Patris om∣nium gerit, Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Aposto∣lorum

caetus. So that although Presbyters grow high yet they doe not overtake the Bishops, or A∣postles, who also in the same proportion grow higher then their first station. This then, will doe no hurt.

As for S. Irenaeus, he indeed does say that Pres∣byters succeed the Apostles, but what Presbyters he means, he tells us, even such Presbyters as were also Bishops, such as S. Peter and S. Iohn was, who call themselves Presbyters,* 1.123 his words are these. Pro∣ptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris abandire o∣portet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis cer∣tum secundùm placitum Patris acceperunt.* 1.124 And a lit∣tle after, Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, & dabo Principes tuos in pace, & E∣piscopos tuos in Iustitiâ. So that he gives testimony for us, not against us. As for S. Hierome, the third man, he in the succession to the honour of the Apo∣stolate joynes Presbyters with Bishops, and that's right enough, for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae, as I have proved he does, then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum.* 1.125 Episcopi & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Aposto∣los & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes, habere nitantur & meritum, those are his words, and inforce not so much as may be safely granted, for reddendo singula singulis, Bishops succeed A∣postles, and Presbyters Apostolick men, and such were many that had not at first any power Aposto∣licall,

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 Scrip∣ture I have alleadged, and the full voyce of traditive interpretation.

THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine institution.* 1.126 In this S. Cyprian is most plentifull. Dominus noster ** Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suo rationem disponens in Evangelio, dicit Petro &c: Inde per tamporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesi•• rati•• decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos canstituatur & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Cum hos ita{que} Divi∣nâ l••ge fundatum sit &c: Our Lord did institute in the Gospell the honour of a Bishop. Hence comes the ordination of Bishops, and the Church is built up∣on them, and every action of the Church is to be governed by them, and this is founded upon a Di∣vine law.* 1.127 Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos. i.e. Episcopos, & praepositos Dominus ele∣git. Our Lord hath chosen Apostles, that is, Bishops and Church-governours. And a little after. Quod si nos aliquid auder•• contrà Deum possumus qui Episco∣pos facit, possunt & contra nos audere Diaconi, à qui∣bus fiunt. We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops. The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatia∣nus his being a Bishop.* 1.128 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 Evange∣licall, and an Apostolick tradition, for the succes∣sive ordination of Bishops, by other Bishops, (as S. Cyprian affirmes there is, by saying Novatianus contemned it,) then certainly the same Evangelicall power did institute that calling, for the modus of whose election, it took such particular order.

S. Ignatius long before him, speaking concerning his absent friend S••tion the Deacon,* 1.129〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He wishes for the good mans company, because by the grace of God, and according to the law of Iesus Christ, he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergy. And a little after. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is home e∣nough. Ye ought to obey your Bishop, and to contra∣dict him in nothing. It is a fearefull thing to con∣tradict 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 hu∣mane constitution and no Divine ordinance. But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He that obeyes the Bishop and Clergy obeyes Christ, who did consti∣tute

and ordaine them. This is plain and dogmati∣call, I would be loath to have two men so famous, so Ancient, and so resolute, speake halfe so much against us.

But it is a generall resolve,* 1.130 and no private opini∣on. For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Ne∣mo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is so ignorant but he knowes that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches, for before his ascen∣sion into Heaven, he ordained the Apostles to be Bi∣shops. But long before him,

Hegesippus going to Rome,* 1.131 and by the way call∣ing in at Corinth, and divers other Churches, dis∣coursed with their severall Bishops, and found them Catholick and Holy, and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleu∣therius. Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus, vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia ha∣bebantur, 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 do∣ctrine and discipline, and therefore the ordinations themselves too. Further yet, and it is worth ob∣serving, there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester, that ever writ decretall E∣pistle now extant and transmitted to us, but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated, that the order of Bishops did come from God.

S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles,* 1.132 saith that with their order of Bishoprick, they have received charisma veritatis certum, a true, and certaine or indelible character; secundùm placitum Patris, according to the will of God the Father. And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose,* 1.133 Ideò quan∣quam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophe∣tis, & quià ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos E∣piscopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit. God from whom all good things doe come, did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop.* 1.134 And againe, Honor igitur, Fratres, & sublimitas Episcopalis, nul∣lis poterit comparationibus adaequari; Si Regum ful∣gori compares &c: and a little after, Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine, cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit, sed ut eam quo{que} jure tueatur patrio, praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis. The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable prehemi∣nence and is by God set over the people, and it is com∣manded by the precept of the holy Gospell that he should guide them by a Fathers right. And in the close of his discourse, Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dici∣tur, Petre amas me? . . . . repetitum est à Domino ter∣tiò, Pasceoves meas. Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed, and in him we (who have Pastorall or Episcopall authority) have received the same authority and commission. Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Ti∣mothy to be Bishop, and of S. Paul's intimation, that

it was by Prophecy, affirme it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Chrysostome,* 1.135 he was ordained by Prophe∣cy, that is by the Holy Ghost. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution.* 1.136 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Oecumenius. By Divine revelation, saith Theodoret. By the com∣mand of the Holy Ghost, so Theophylact; and in∣deed so S. Paul, to the assembly of Elders and Bi∣shops met at Miletus,* 1.137 Spiritus S. posuit vos Episco∣pos, the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops: & to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them, and he was a Bishop, and so were diverse others there present; therefore the order it selfe is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty, since a single person was made Bishop by revelation. I might multiply authorities in this par∣ticular, which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy, in† 1.138 Origen, in the Councell of Carthage recorded by S. Cypri∣an, in the collection of the* 1.139 Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis: in the Councells ofa 1.140 Aquis∣grane, andb 1.141 Toledo, and many more. The summe is that which was taught byc 1.142 S. Sixtus, Apostolorum dispositione, ordinante Domino Episcopi primitùs sunt constituti. The Lord did at first ordaine, and the Apostles did so order it, and so Bishops at first had their Originall constitution.

These and all the former who affirme Bishops to be successors of the Apostles, & by consequence to have the same institution, drive all to the same issue, and are sufficient to make faith, that it was the do∣doctrine

Primitive, and Catholick that Episcopacy is a divine institution, which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendome, which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost, and to which we are confident that God will give an in∣crease by a never failing succession, unlesse where God removes the Candlestick, or which is all one, takes away the starre, the Angell of light from it, that it may be invelop'd in darknesse, us{que} ad consum∣mationem sae••uli & aperturam tenebrarum. The con∣clusion of all, I subjoyne in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted,* 1.143 sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, and Superiour to them by the law of God.

THE second Basis of Episco∣pacy is Apostolicall tradition. We have seen what Christ did, now wee shall see what was done by his Apostles. And since they knew their Masters mind so well, wee can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authori∣ty then the practise Apostolicall.* 1.144 Apostoli enim Dis∣cipuli veritatis existentes, extra omne mendacium sunt, non enim communicat mendacium veritati, sicut non communicant tenebrae luci,* 1.145 sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum. saith S. Irenaeus.

FIrst, then, the Apostles did presently after the ascension fixe an Apostle or a Bishop in the chayre of Ierusalem. For they knew that Ierusalem was shortly to be destroyed, they themselves fore∣told of miseryes and desolations to insue, (Petrus & Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam, saith

Lactantius l. 4. inst.) famines and warres, and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Re∣bellious City by Christs owne prediction, which themselves recorded in Scripture. And to say they understood not what they writ, is to make them Enthusiasts, and neither good Doctors nor wise se∣ers. But it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publike affaires, as was so Great desolation, and therefore they be∣gan betimes to establish that Church, and to fixe it upon it's perpetuall base. 2^ly The Church of Ieru∣salem was to be the president and platforme for o∣ther Churches. [The word of God went forth into all the world, beginning first at Ierusalem], and there∣fore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes, that other Churches might see their governement from whence they receiv'd their doctrine, that they might see from what starres their continuall fluxe of light must streame. 3^ly The Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution, and this to be sure they look'd for, and therefore (so implying the necessity of a Bishop to governe in their absence or decession any wayes) they ordayn'd S. Iames the first Bishop of Ierusalem;* 1.146 there he fixt his chayre, there he liv'd Bishop for 30 yeares, and finish'd his course with glorious Martyrdome. If this be proov'd we are in a fayre way for practise Apostolicall.

First, let us see all that is said of S. Iames in Scrip∣ture, that may concerne this affayre. Acts. 15. We

find S. Iames in the Synod at Ierusalem, not disputing, but giving finall determination to that Great Qu: about Circumcision. [And when there had beene much disputing, Peter rose up and said &c:] He first drave the question to an issue, and told them what he beleiv'd concerning it, with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we trust it will goe as well with us without circumcisi∣on, as with our Forefathers who us'd it. But S. Iames when he had summ'd up what had beene said by S. Peter, gave sentence and finall determination. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. wherefore I judge or give sentence. So he. The Acts of Councell which the Brethren or Pres∣byters did use were deliberative, they disputed, v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative, but S. Iames his was decisive; which proves him clearely (if by reason∣ablenesse of the thing and the successive practise of Christendome in imitation of this first Councell Apostolicall we may take our estimate) that S. Iames was the President of this Synod, which considering that he was none of the twelve (as I proved former∣ly) is unimaginable, were it not for the advantage of the place, it being held in Ierusalem, where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus (as S. Clement call's him) especially in the presence of S. Peter, who was primus Apostolus, and decked with many personall priviledges and prerogatives.

*Adde to this, that although the whole Coun∣cell did consent to the sending of the Decretall Epi∣stle, and to send Iudas and Silas, yet because they were of the Presbytery, and Colledge of Ierusalem, S. Iames his Clergy, they are said, as by way of ap∣propriation

to come from S. Iames. Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus, Cùm vidis∣set quosdam venisse à Iacobo, i. e. à Iudaeâ, nam Ec∣clesiae Hierosolymitanae Iacobus praefuit. To this pur∣pose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Ste∣phen the Deacon of S. Iames,* 1.147 and in his Epistle to Hero, saying that he did Minister to S. Iames and the Presbyters of Ierusalem, which if we expound according to the knowne discipline of the Church in Ignatius time (who was Suppar Apostolorum, one∣ly not a contemporary Bishop) here is plainely the eminency of an Episcopall chayre, and Ierusalem the seat of S. Iames, and the Clergy his owne, of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinari∣us, he was their Ordinary.

*The second evidence of Scripture is [Acts. 21. And when we were come to Ierusalem the Bre∣thren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto Iames, and all the Elders were present.] Why unto Iames? Why not rather into the Presbytery, or Colledge of Elders, if Iames did not eminere, were not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Praepositus or Bishop of them all?

Now that these conjectures are not vayne 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 uncon∣tradicted by Antiquity is a mad man, and may as well disbeleive every thing that he hath not seene himselfe, and can no way prove that himselfe was Christned, and to be sure, after 1600 yeares there is

no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never question'd or doubted of before, and there∣fore can never obtayne the faith of any man to his contradictory, it being impossible to prove it.

Eusebius reports out of S. Clement.* 1.148 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Peter and S. Iohn although they were honoured of our Lord, yet they would not themselves be, but made Iames sirnamed the Iust, Bishop of Ierusalem; And the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae, for when S. Iames was crown'd with Martyrdome, and immediately the City destroyed,* 1.149 Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum SUCCESSIONE IACOBI judicari. It was conclu∣ded for Simeon, because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. Iames also his Predecessor. The same concerning S. Iames is also repeated by Eusebius. Iudaei ergo cùm Paulus provocasset ad Caesarem. . . . . In Iacobum fratrem Domini CUI AB APOSTOLIS SE∣DES HIEROSOLYMITANA DELATA FUIT,* 1.150 omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt.

In the Apostolicall constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus.* 1.151 De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ no∣strâ, significamus vobis quòd hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Iacobus Frater Domini. S. Iames the Brother of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by us [Apostles.] The same is witnessed by Ana∣cletus.

Porrò & Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Iacobus qui Iustus dicebatur,* 1.152 & secundùm carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater, à Petro, Iacobo, & Io∣hanne Apostolis est ordinatus. And the same thing in termes is repeated by Anicetus,* 1.153 with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Iacobum &c: Iust as Anacletus before. S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, and Peter, Iames, and Iohn were his Ordayners.

But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chayre, who certainly was the best witnesse of his owne Church Records. S. Cyrill of Ierusalem is the man. Nam de his non mihi solùm,* 1.154 sed etiam Apostolis, & IACOBO HUIVS EC∣CLESIae OLIM EPISCOPO curae fuit, speaking of the question of circumcision, and things sacrificed to Idols,* 1.155 and againe, he calls S. Iames, primum hujus pa∣rochiae Episcopum, the first Bishop of this Diocesse.

S. Austin also attests this story.* 1.156 Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in quâ Petrus sedit, & in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet? Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae IN QVA IACOBUS SEDIT, & in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet? I must not omitt the testimony of S. Ierome,* 1.157 for it will be of great use in the sequel, Iacobus (saith he) post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus, and the same also he repeates out of Hegesippus.* There are ma∣ny more testimonyes to this purpose, as of S.a 1.158 Chry∣sostome, b 1.159 Epiphanius, S.c 1.160 Ambrose, the Councell ofd 1.161 Constantinople in Trullo. But Gregorius Turo∣nensis rises a little higher, Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus, ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episco∣pus

dicitur ordinatus. S. Iames the Brother of our Lord is said to have beene ordain'd Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe. If by [Ordinatus] he meanes [designatus] he agrees with S. Chrysostome:* 1.162 But ei∣ther of them both will serve the turne for the pre∣sent. But either in one sense or the other it is true, and attested also by Epiphanius,* 1.163 & primus hic acce∣pit Cathedram Episcopatûs, cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terrâ primò. S. Iames had first the Episcopall chayre, for our Lord first intrusted his earth∣ly throne to him. And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses, to all which if we adde what I before observed, that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle, and yet he was none of the twelve, and that in the sense of Scripture and the Catholike Church, a Bishop and an Apostle is all one, it fol∣lowes from the premises, (and of them already there is faith enough made) that S. Iames was by Christs owne designation, and ordination Aposto∣licall made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem, that is, had power Apostolicall concredited to him which Presbyters had not, and this Apostolate was limited and fixed, as his Successors since have beene.

But that this also was not a temporary businesse,* 1.164 and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles, but a regiment of ordinary and suc∣cessive duty in the Church, it appeares by the ordi∣nation of S. Simeon the sonne of Cleophas to be his Successor.* 1.165 It is witnessed by Eusebius, Post martyri∣um Iacobi. . . . traditur Apostolos &c. habuisse in com∣mune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione

Iacobi judicari; omnes{que} uno consilio, at{que} uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet. The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus,* 1.166 Posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est. . . . electione divinâ Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur, electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset conso∣brinus Domini. S. Simeon was ordayn'd Bishop by a Divine election;* 1.167 And Epiphanius in the Cata∣logue of the Bishops of Ierusalem, reckons first Iames, and next Simeon, qui sub Trajano crucifixus est.

THe next Bishop we find ordayn'd by the Apo∣stles was Timothy at Ephesus.* 1.168 That he was or∣dayn'd by an Apostle appeares in Scripture. For S. Paul impos'd hands on him, that's certayne, Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mea∣rum,* 1.169 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* 1.170 resi∣dent at Ephesus. And although for the publike ne∣cessityes of the Church, and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge, yet there he liv'd and dyed as the Church story writes, there was his ordinary residence, and his avocations were but temporary and occasionall, and when it was, his Cure was supplyed by Tychicus, whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar, as I shall shew hereafter.

2. S. Paul in his epistles to him, gave directions to him for Episcopall deportment as is plaine. A Bi∣shop must be blamelesse, the husband of one wife,* 1.171 &c.

3. S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy. O∣ver the people; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Commanding as teaching. Over Presbyters; but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity, the one as Fathers, the other as Brethren.* 1.172 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is denied to be used to∣wards either of them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Suidas, a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation. Nay it is more; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is castigo, plagam infero, saith Bu∣daeus: 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that's given him in com∣mission both to old and young, Presbyters and Ca∣techumens, that is, Require them; postula, provoca. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synesius. To be provoked to a Duel, to be challenged. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysostome. Ad precandum vos provoco. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eurip. Thou makest me, or compeliest me to shed teares. Suavitèr omnia. That's the way S. Paul takes. Meekely; but yet so as to doe his office, to keep all in their severall duties, and that is by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, command these things, for so he summes up the Bishops duty to∣wards Presbyters, Neophytes, and Widdowes. Give all these things in charge.* 1.173 Command all to doe their duty. Command, but not objurgate. Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem. So Epi∣phanius urges this argument to advantage.* 1.174 For in∣deed

it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy, how he should exer∣cise his jurisdiction over Presbyters and people, if he had had no jurisdiction and coercitive authority at all. Nay, and howsoever S. Paul forbids to Ti∣mothy to use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it, intimating, up∣on great occasion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.175 To be sure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if it be but an urging, or an exhor∣tation, is not all, for S. Paul gives him coercitive ju∣risdiction, as well as directive. Over Widdowes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Reject the younger Widdowes, viz. à collegio viduarum, ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae. O∣ver Presbyters. for he commands him to have suf∣ficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters, of which if he was not to take cognisance, it was to no purpose to number witnesses. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Receive not a publick accusation [in foro externo] against a Priest, Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum, &c. to wit, in causes criminall, That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminall; then for his punishing in such causes, it followes in the next words,* 1.176 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Reprehend them publikely, that is, disgrace them. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ind••corus.. . . . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Homer Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Paul, is to call them to publick ac∣count; that's one part of the jurisdiction. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is to examine. Plato Epist. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to give an account of one's life▪ idem in Apolog. And

then also it implies punishment upon conviction,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. ••. Iliad.

But the words in S. Paul will cleare this businesse. Let them that sinne be publikly sham'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the rest may feare; A punishment most certainly, something that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ma∣lum in genere poenae. What else should they feare? to sinne? Most true. But why upon this reprehen∣sion, if not for feare of being punished?

Adde to all this, that here is in this chapter the plaine giving of a jurisdiction, an erection of a judi∣catory, and is all the way, direction for his procee∣ding in causes criminall, appears most evidently, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the elect Angells, that thou observe these things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without prejudging the cause of any mā before it comes in open contestatiō under publick test of witnesses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doing nothing for favour or partiality. Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consisto∣ry then these mandates of S. Paul.

Lastly, to make up his Episcopall function com∣pleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders.* 1.177 [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•• ordi∣net. Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est. Haec Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religioni, cujus rei in futuro praemium consequetur.

So S. Ambrose upon the place, who is so farre from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops consistory, that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the judicature, and co∣ercitive jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy.

Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholike and unquestion'd Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have beene ordain'd Bishop of Ephe∣sus by S. Paul. Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul,* 1.178 sed & Lucas (saith he) in actibus Aposto∣lorum plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei & Titi, quorum alter in Ephesi Episcopus . . . ab eo ordi∣natus praeficitur.* 1.179 S. Ambrose affirmes that S. Paul ha∣ving ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopall 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 owne person, and all Bishops in him for their de∣portment in the office of a Bishop is the united, con∣current testimony of S.a 1.180 Vincentius,b 1.181 Tertullian, S.c 1.182 Chrysostome, S.d 1.183 Ambrose,e 1.184 Oecumenius,f 1.185 E∣piphanius,g 1.186 Primasius, and S.h 1.187 Gregory. As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madnesse and stupidity of Aë∣rius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one; docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus & quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus, Presbyterum ne objurges, &c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the generall Councell of Chalcedon in

the case of Bassianus and Stephanus; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Councell, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From S. Timothy untill now there have beene 27 Bishops ordayned in Ephesus. Who desires a multitude of testimonies (though enough already have deposed in the cause, beside the evidence of Scripture) may to these adde that saying of S. Chrysostome,* 1.188 that to Timothy was com∣mitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 re∣cord, and very Ancient,) the fragment of the Mar∣tyrdome of S. Timothy* 1.189 in Photius,i 1.190 S. Ierome,k 1.191 The∣ophylact,l 1.192 Isidore▪ andm 1.193 Nicephorus.

And now all is well if after all this Timothy doe not prove an Evangelist, for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause, and though neither pertinent nor true, yet shall be laid in the ballance against all the evidence of Scrip∣ture and Catholick antiquity. But [doe the work of an Evangelist] (saith S. Paul) therefore it is cleare S. Timothy was no Bishop. No, was not? That's hard. But let us try however.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those are the next words, fulfill thy Deaconship. And therefore he was no Bishop? As well this as the other, for if Deacon∣ship doe not exclude Episcopacy, why shall his be∣ing an Evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist, as

well as his being an Evangelist, exclude his being a Bishop? Whether is higher, a Bishoprick, or the office of an Evangelist? If a Bishops office be higher, and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist, then a Bishop cannot be a Priest, and a Priest cannot be a Deacon, and an Evangelist can be neither, for that also is thought to be higher then them both. But if the office of an Evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much lesse destru∣ctive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an E∣vangelist is an office of a moveable imployment, and a Bishoprick of fixt residence, that will be conside∣red by and by.

2. All the former discourse is upon suppositi∣on, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, implyes the office of a Dea∣con, and so it may as well as S. Pauls other phrase implyes S. Timothy to be an Evangelist. For if we marke it well it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe the worke, not the office of an Evangelist. And what's that? We may see it in the verses immediatly going before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And if this he the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy performe, viz. to preach, to be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort, there is no harme done, a Bi∣shop may, nay he must doe all this.

3. Consider we what an Evangelist is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the Gospell is an Evangelist, so

the Greek Scholiast calls him. And in this sense in∣deed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist, but yet if he had, he might have been a Bishop, because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure, and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop; sure enough; for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church, as we shall see hereafter, so farre as concernes our Question. But then again; an Apostle might be an Evangelist, S. Matthew was, and S. Iohn was, and the Apostolicall dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist, as Episcopall preheminence, for I have proved these two names Apostle, and Bishop to signify all one thing.* 1.194 2. S. Ambrose gives another exposition of [Evangelists.] Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus. S. Philip was one of the leaven, com∣monly called Deacons, and he was also a Presbyter, and yet an Evangelist, and yet a Presbyter in it's proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop, or else why are Presbyters cry'd out a∣gainst so bitterly in all cases, for non-residence, and yet nothing hinders, but that S. Timothy, as well as S. Philip, might have been a Presbyter and an E∣vangelist together, and then why not a Bishop too, for why should a Deaconship, or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist, more then a Bishoprick? 3. Another acceptation of [Evange∣list] is also in Eusebius.* 1.195 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 praedi∣carent, prima{que} apud eos Evangelii fundamenta col∣locantes. . . . Evangelistarum fungebantur officio. They that planted the Gospell first in any Country, they were Evangelists. S. Timothy might be such a one, and yet be a Bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of Evangelists. For so Eusebius, Prima{que} apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes, at{que} ELECTIS QUIBUS QUE EX IPSIS officium re∣gendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes, ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant. So that they first converted the Nation, and then govern'd the Church, first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops; and so was Austin the Monke that con∣verted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethel∣bert▪ he was first our Evangelist, and afterwards Bishop of Dover. Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time, insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries,* 1.196 as S. Chrysostome in Scythia, S. Trophimus, S. Denis, S. Marke, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word [Evangelist] this office does not imply a perpetuall motion. Evangelists many of them did travell, but they were never the more Evangelists for that, but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospell, and thence they had their name.

4. The office of an Evangelist was but tempora∣ry, and take it in either of the two senses of Euse∣bius or Oecumenius, which are the only true and

genuine, was to expire when Christianity was plan∣ted every where, and the office of Episcopacy, if it was at all was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent, at least, not alwaies. * And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, [to the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ,]* 1.197 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 ex∣piring office, then in no sense, neither in person, nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christs coming, to wit, to judgement. But if he instructed him in the perpetuall office of Episcopa∣cy, then it is easy to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personall, but for his successors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy.

5. Lastly, After all this stirre, there are some of the Fathers, that will by no means admit S. Ti∣mothy to have been an Evangelist. So S. Chrysostome, so Theophylact,* 1.198 so the Greek Scholiast, now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needlesse, we were safe enough without it; if it be false, then it selfe we see is needlesse, for the allegation of S. Timothy's being an Evangelist, is absolutely impertinent, though it had been true.

But now I proceed.

TItus was also made a Bishop by the Apostles.* 1.199 S. Paul also was his ordainer. 1. Reliqui te Cretae. There S. Paul fixt his seat for him, at Crete. 2. His worke was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to set in or∣der things that are wanting, viz. to constitute rites and formes of publike Liturgy, to erect a Consisto∣ry for cognisance of causes criminall, to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine Service, and in a word, by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ritualls, as himselfe did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God. For he that was appointed by S. Paul, to rectify, and set things in order, was most certainly by him supposed to be the Iudge of all the obliquities which he was to rectify. 2. The next worke is Episcopall too, and it is the ordaining Pres∣byters in every Citty. Not Presbyters collectively in every Citty, but distributively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Citty by Citty, that is Elders in severall Citties, one in one Citty, Many in many. For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops. Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account, but here it is plaine S. Paul expounds himselfe to meane Bishops.

1. In termes and expresse words. [To ordaine Elders in every Citty; If any be the husband of one wife, &c. For a Bishop must be blamelesse.] That is, the elders that you are to ordaine in severall Citties must be blamelesse, for else they must not be Bi∣shops. 2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot hinder this

exposition, for S. Peter calls himselfe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and S. Iohn, Presbyter electae Dominae, and Presbyter dilectissimo Gajo. Such Presbyters as these were A∣postolicall, and that's as much as Episcopall to be sure. 3. S. Paul addes farther [a Bishop must be blamelesse AS THE STEWARD OF GOD. Who then is that faithfull and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?] S. Pauls Bishop is Gods steward,* 1.200 and Gods steward is the ruler of his hous-hold, saies our blessed Saviour himselfe, and therefore not a meere Presbyter, amongst whom indeed there is a parity, but no superintendency of Gods making. 4. S. Paul does in the sequell still qualify his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of ru∣lers. A Bishop must be no striker, not given to wine. They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts. [If the Steward of the house will drinke and be DRUNKE, and BEATE his fellow servants, then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers.] The steward of the hous-hold, this Ruler, must not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no more must a Bishop, he must not be given to wine, no striker; Ne{que} enim pugilem describit sermo Apo∣stolicus, sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debe∣at,* 1.201 saith S. Hierome: still then, these are the Rulers of the Church, which S. Titus was to ordaine, and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house, for how else shall hee take charge of the Church of God, implying that this his charge is to Rule the house of God. 5. The reason why

S. Paul appointed him to ordaine these Bishops in Citties is in order to coercitive jurisdiction, be∣cause [many unruly and vaine talkers were crept in, vers. 10.] and they were to be silenced 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Their mouths must be stopped. Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdicti∣on over these impertinent Preachers, which to a sin∣gle Presbyter, either by Divine or Apostolicall in∣stitution no man will grant, and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it, for himselfe had given it singly to S. Titus. For I consider,

Titus alone had coercitive jurisdiction before he ordayn'd these Elders, be they Bishops, be they Presbyters. The Presbyters which were at Crete before his comming had not Episcopall power, or coercitive jurisdiction, for why then was Titus sent? As for the Presbyters which Titus ordayn'd, before his ordayning them, to be sure they had no power at all, they were not Presbyters. If they had a coercitive jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, then Titus had it before in his owne person, (for they that were there before his com∣ming, had not, as I shewed) and therefore he must also have it still, for he could not loose it by ordai∣ning others, or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordain'd? For plus juris in alium transferre nemo potest, quàm ipse habet.

Howsoever it by then, to be sure, Titus had it in his owne person and then it followes Undeniably, that either this coercitive jurisdiction was not ne∣cessary for the Church (which would be either to

suppose men impcccable, or the Church to be expo∣sed to all the inconveniences of Schisme and tumu∣tuary factions without possibility of releife) or if it was necessary, then because it was in Titus not as a personall prerogative, but a power to be succeded to; he might ordaine others, he had authority to doe it, with the same power he had himselfe, and therefore since he alone had this coërcion in his owne person, so should his Successors, and then be∣cause a single Presbyter, could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides, nor the Col∣ledge of Presbyters which were there before his comming had it not, for why then was Titus sent with a new commission, nor those which he was to ordaine if they were but meere Presbyters could not have it, no more then the Presbytes that were there before his comming, it followes that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Prea∣chers, and with authority to silence them, (as is evi∣dent in the first chapter of that Epistle) these Elders (I say) are verily, and indeed such as himselfe call's Bishops in the proper sense, and acceptation of the word.

6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there be∣fore S. Titus comming, had not power to ordaine others, that is, had not that power which Titus had. For Titus was sent thither for that purpose, there∣fore to supply the want of that power. And now, because to ordaine others was necessary for the con∣servation

and succession of the Church, that is, be∣cause new generations are necessary for the continu∣ing the world, and meere Presbyters could not doe it, and yet this must be done, not onely by Titus himselfe, but after him, it followes undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordaine men with the same power that himselfe had, that is with more then his first Cretan Presbyters, that is Bishops, and he meanes them in the proper sense.

7. That by Elders in severall Cityes he meanes Bishops is also plaine from the place where they were to be ordained, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In populous Cityes, not in village Townes, For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Townes, as is to be seene in the Councell ofa 1.202 Sar∣dis, ofb 1.203 Chalcedon, and S.c 1.204 Leo, the Cityes there∣fore doe at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordain'd were not meere Presbyters.

The issue of this discourse is, that since Titus was sent to Crete to ordaine Bishops, himselfe was a Bishop to be sure, at least. If he had ordain'd on∣ly Presbyters, it would have prov'd that. But this inferres him to be a Metropolitan, forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his owne constitution, and yet of proper diocesses. However, if this dis∣course concludes nothing peculiar, it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes, upon the con∣fusion of Episcopus, and Presbyter; and at least in∣ferres his being a Bishop, if not a great deale more.

Yea; but did not S. Titus ordaine no meere Pres∣byters? yes most certainely. But, so he did Deacons too, and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order. For he that ordaines a Bishop, first makes him a Deacon, (and then he obtaines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a good degree) and then a Presbyter, and then a Bishop. So that these inferior orders are presuppos'd in the authorizing the Supreame, and by giving direction for the quali∣fications of Bishops, he sufficiently instructs the in∣feriour orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher.

2. Adde to this, that he that ordaines Bishops in Cityes sets there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordinem generati∣vum Patrum, as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy, and therefore most certainely with intention, not that it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Manus Mortua, but, to produce others, and therefore Presbyters and Deacons.

3. S. Paul made no expresse provision for vil∣lages, and yet most certainely did not intend to leave them destitute, and therefore he tooke order that such ordinations should be made in Cityes which should be provisionary for Villages, and that is, of such men as had power to ordaine and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased. For since Presbyters could not ordaine other Presbyters, as appeares by S. Paul's sending Titus to doe it there, where, most certainely, many Presbyters before were actually resident, if Presbyters had gone to Villages they

must have left the Cityes destitute, or if they staid in Cityes the Villages would have perished, and at last, when these men had dyed both one and the other, had beene made a prey to the wolfe, for there could be no sheapheard after the decay of the first generation.

But let us see further into S. Titus his commissi∣on and letters of orders, and institution.* 1.205 [A man that is an heretick after the first and second admoniti∣on reject.] Cognisance of hereticall pravity, and animadversion against the heretick himselfe is most plainely concredited to S. Titus. For first he is to admonish him, then to reject him upon his pertina∣cy, from the Catholike communion. Cogere autem illos videtur, qui saepe corripit, saith S. Ambrose, upon the establishing a coactive, or coërcitive jurisdicti∣on over the Clergy and whole Diocesse.

But I need not specifie any more particulars, for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.206 all au∣thority and power. The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Comentary on this Epi∣stle. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, & ideò commonet eum ut sit sollicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordina∣tione▪ id est, ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dì∣gnos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, si∣mul{que} & haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos.

And now after so faire preparatory of Scripture we may heare the testimonies of Antiquity witnes∣sing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete. Sed & Lucas (saith Eusebius) in actibus Apostolo∣rum. . . . Timothei meminit & Titi quorum alter in E∣pheso* 1.207

Episcopus: alter ordinandis apud Cretam Eccle∣siis* 1.208 ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly, Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, The Apostle conse∣crated Titus Bishop; and Theodoret, calling Titus, Cre∣tensium* 1.209 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 1.210 Hierome, inb 1.211 Do∣rotheus, inc 1.212 Isidore, ind 1.213 Vincentius, ine 1.214 Theodoret, in f 1.215 S. Gregory, ing 1.216 Primatius,h 1.217 Sedulius,i 1.218 Theophilact andk 1.219 Nicephorus. To which if we adde the subscrip∣tion of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent ob∣jections by the clearer testimony of S.l 1.220 Athanasius, Sm 1.221 Ierome, the Syriack translation,n 1.222 Oecumenius ando 1.223 Theophylact, no confident deniall can ever break through, or scape conviction.

And now I know not what objection can fairely be made here; for I hope S. Titus was no Evange∣list, 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 jurisdi∣ction, the cognisance of causes criminall, and the whole exigence of the Epistle proclaime him Bi∣shop. But suppose a while Titus had been an Evan∣gelist, I would faine know who succeeded him? Or did all his office expire with his person? If so, then who shall reject Hereticks 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 govern'd the Churches which before they did not, then to be sure their government in common, is not an Apostolicall Ordinance, much lesse is it a Divine right, for it is postnate to thē both. But if they had no more power after Titus then they had under him, how then could they succeed him? There was indeed a dereliction of the autho∣rity, 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 Col∣ledge, for so we find in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recorded by Eu∣sebius that in Gnossus of Crete, Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop, and that Philip was the Metropoli∣tan at Gortyna. Sed & Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit, saith Eusebius. But of this,* 1.224 enough.

MY next instance shall be of one that was an E∣vangelist* 1.225 indeed, one that writ the Gospell, 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 & Bar∣nabas, when they went to the Gentiles, by ordina∣tion and speciall designement made at Antioch; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.226 They had Iohn to be their Minister; viz: Iohn whose sirname was Marke. * 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 diverse Churches, their ordination of Bishops, their journeyes, their perse∣cutions, their Miracles and Martyrdomes are recor∣ded, & rely upon the faith of the primitive Church. And yet the ordination of S. Marke was within the terme of S. Lukes story, for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eight yeare of Nero's reigne, five or six yeares before the death of S. Paul. Igitur Neronis PRIMO Imperij anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandri∣am Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit. So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it, in stead of octavo. Sacerdotium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is the Bishoprick, for else there were many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Priests in Alexandria besides him, and how then he should be S. Markes successor more then the other Presbyters, is not so soone to be contriv'd. But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs. Quòd post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexan∣drinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus, Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Marke. * And Philo the Iew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria, called by the inhabitants, Cultores, and Cultrices, The worshippers, Addit au∣tem adhuc his (saith Eusebius) quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua,* 1.227 vel quae sit suprà omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers, there was an E∣piscopall dignity which was apex super omnia, a height above all imployments, established at Alex∣andria;

and how soone that was, is soone computed, for Philo liv'd in our blessed Saviours time, and was Embassador to the Emperour Cajus, and sur∣viv'd S. Marke a little.

But S. Ierome will strike up this businesse, A Mar∣co Evangelistâ ad Heraclam us{que},* 1.228 & Dionysiam Epis∣copos, Presbyteri Egypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. And againe, Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri,* 1.229 & A∣lexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus. The same is witnessed bya 1.230 S. Gregory,b 1.231 Nicephorus, and divers others.

Now although the ordination of S. Marke 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. Iames the sonne of Thaddaeus, nor of Alpheus, but the Martyrdome of one of them, nothing of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, or Simon zelotes, of S. Iude the Apostle, scarce any of their names recorded, yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records, which all Christendome hitherto, so farre as we know, hath acknowledged as authentick, and these ordinations cannot possibly goe lesse then Apostolicall, being done in the Apostles times, to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited, they seeing and be∣holding severall successions in severall Churches before their death, as here at Alexandria, first Saint Marke, then Anianus, made Bishop five or sixe years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul. But yet who it was that ordain'd S. Marke Bishop of

Alexandria (for Bishop he was most certainly) is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Romane Councell, Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis prae∣dicavit,* 1.232 & gloriosè consummavit Martyrium. S. Peter sent him into Egypt to found a Church, and therefore would furnish him with all things requi∣site for so great imployment, and that could be no lesse, then the ordinary power Apostolicall.

BUt in the Church of Rome,* 1.233 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. Fundan∣tes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradide∣runt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timothe∣um Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post cum tertiò loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui & vidit ipsos Apostolos, & contulit cum eis, cùm adhuc insonantem praedicationem Aposto∣lorum,* 1.234 & traditionem ante oculos haberet. So S. Ire∣naeus.* 1.235 Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Cres∣cens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus. Linus vero & Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse. Many more testimonies there are of these means being or∣dained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles, as of a 1.236 Tertullian,b 1.237 Optatus,c 1.238 S. Austin, andd 1.239 S. Hierome. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish, and bee tedious in a thing so evident and known.

S. Iohn ordain'd S. Polycarpe Bishop at Smyrna. . . . sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Iohanne conlocatum refert;* 1.240 sicut Romanorum Cle∣mentem à Petro ordinatum edit, proinde uti{que} & cae∣terae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum con∣stitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. So Ter∣tullian.* 1.241 The Church of Smyrna saith that Poly∣carpe was placed there by S. Iohn, as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordain'd there by S. Peter, and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops.* 1.242 Polycarpus au∣tem non solùm ab Apostolis edoctus. . . . sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ, in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesiâ con∣stitutus Episcopus. . . . & testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asiâ Ecclesiae omnes, & qui us{que} adhuc successerunt Polycarpo &c. The same also is witnes∣sed by S. Ierome, and * Eusebius: Quoniam autem valdè longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesia∣rum successiones enumerare, to use S. Irenaeus his ex∣pression; It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands, asa 1.243 S. Dionysius the Areopagite at A∣thens, b 1.244 Cajus at Thessalonica,c 1.245 Archippus at Colosse, d 1.246 Onesimus at Ephesus,e 1.247 Antipas at Pergamus,f 1.248 Epa∣phroditus at Philippi,g 1.249 Crescens among the Gaules, h 1.250 Evodias at Antioch,* 1.251 Sosipater at Iconium, Erastus in Macedonia, Trophimus at Arles, Iason 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 Scrip∣ture, as these forecited are, so many as* 1.252 Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate; it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their acts and or∣dinations in those generall foldings us'd by the Fa∣thers, saying that the Apostles did ordaine Bishops in all Churches, that the succession of Bishops downe from the Apostles first ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick, and their adversaries who could not doe so, to be Hereticall; This also is very evident, and of great consideration in the first ages while their tradition was cleare, and evident, and not so bepudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks, striving to spoile that which did so much mischiefe to their causes.

Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant or∣dinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab ini∣tio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem, hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt,* 1.253 &c. And when S. Irenaeus had recko∣ned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles, nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Epis∣copatum habet Eleutherius. Hâc ordinatione (saith he) & successione, & ea quae est ab Apostolis in Eccle∣siâ traditio & veritatis praeconiatio pervenit us{que} ad nos; & est plenissima haec ostensio unam & candem vi∣vatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis us{que} nunc sit conservata, & tradita in veritate. So that

this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordi∣nation, must of it selfe be a very certain thing, when the Church made it a maine probation of their faith; for the books of Scripture were not all gathe∣red together, and generally received as yet. Now then, since this was a main pillar of their Christiani∣ty, viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand, as being delivered by the Bishops in every chaire, till wee come to the very Apostles that did ordain them, this (I say) being their proof, al∣though it could not be more certain then the thing to be proved, which in that case was a Divine reve∣lation, yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact, and known almost by evidence of sense, and as verily believed by all, as it was by any one, that himselfe was baptized, both relying upon the report of others.* 1.254 Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum, & successiones Episcoporum, certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur, saith S. Au∣stin. The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world, by the successions of Apostles and Bishops.

And is it not now a madnesse to say there was no such thing, no succession of Bishops in the Chur∣ches Apostolicall, no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and so (as S. Paul's phrase is) overthrow the faith of some, even of the Primitive Christians, that used this argument as a great weapon of of∣fence against the invasion of haereticks and factious people? It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus,* 1.255 Habemus annumerare eos qui ab A∣postolis

instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis us{que} ad nos. We can reckon those who from the Apostles untill now were made Bishops in the Churches; and of this we are sure enough, if there be any faith in Christians.

THE summe is this.* 1.256 Although we had not proo∣ved the immediate Divine institution of Epis∣copall power over Presbyters and the whole flock, yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall or∣dinance, 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,* 1.257 and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day, and so al∣so they did on the saturday in the Iewish Syna∣gogues, but yet (however that at Geneva, they were once in meditation to have chang'd it into a Thursday meeting to have showne their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festivall lesse then an Apostoli∣call ordinance, and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appoin∣ted.

* Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apo∣stles; and wise men doe easily observe that the Ana∣baptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we doe of baptizing infants upon them, if we

speak of immediate Divine institution, or of pra∣ctise Apostolicall recorded in Scripture, and there∣fore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ a∣gainst the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Aposto∣licall traditive ordination, and therefore the institu∣tion of Bishops, must be served first, as having fai∣rer plea, and clearer evidence in Scripture, then the baptizing of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church, confidently condemn'd for Hereticks.

* Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity, as the Presbyters consecrat∣ing the Eucharist; for if the Apostles in the first in∣stitution did represent the whole Church, Clergy and Laity, when Christ said [Hoc facite, Doe this] then why may not every Christian man there repre∣sented, doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then doe all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the foure Gospells, li∣miting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Cler∣gy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests upon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H. Church, and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be, by any man that would not have his Christendome suspected.

* To these I adde the communion of Women, the distinction of bookes Apocryphall, from Cano∣nicall, that such books were written by such Evan∣gelists,

and Apostles, the whole tradition of Scrip∣ture it selfe, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution, must needs pre∣vaile as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and di∣vers others of greater consequence (which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood) rely but upon equall faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should wave all the arguments for imme∣diate Divine ordinance) and therefore it is but rea∣sonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian, whose Master is truth it selfe.

VVHat their power and eminence was,* 1.258 and the appropriates of their office so ordain'd by the Apostles, appears also by the testimonies before alleadged, the expressions whereof runne in these high termes. Episcopatus administrandae Ec∣clesiae in Lino. Linus his Bishoprick was the admi∣nistration of the whole Church. Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens, they were both Pre∣fects of the Church, or Prelates, that's the Church-word. Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur, so Titus, he is set over all the affaires of the new-founded Churches in Crete. In celsiori gradu col∣locatus, plac'd in a higher order or degree, so the Bi∣shop of Alexandria, chosen ex Presbyteris, from a∣mongst the Presbyters. Supra omnia Episcopalis api∣cis

sedes, so Philo of that Bishoprick, The seat of E∣piscopall height above all things in Christianity. These are its honours. Its offices these. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. To set in order whatsoever he sees wanting, or amisse; to si∣lence vaine prating Preachers, that will not submit to their superiors, to ordaine elders, to rebuke delin∣quents, to reject Hereticks, viz. from the commu∣nion of the faithfull (for else why was the Angell of the Church of Pergamus reprov'd for tolera∣ting the Nicolaitan hereticks, but that it was in his power to eject them? And the same is the case of the Angell of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people) but to the Bishop was committed the cognisance of causes criminall and particular of Presbyters, (so to Timothy in the instance formerly alleadged) nay, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all authority, so in the case of Titus, and officium regen∣dae Ecclesiae, the office of ruling the Church, so to them all whom the Apostles left in the severall Churches respectively which they had new founded.* 1.259 So Eu∣sebius. For the Bishop was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set over all, Clergy and Laity, saith S. Clement.

This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves, and this was not given to Presbyters, as I have already prooved, and for the present, it will sufficiently appeare in this, that Bishops had power over Presbyters, which cannot be supposed they had over themselves, unlesse they could be their own superiours.

BUt a Councell,* 1.260 or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one, and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times, and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere, govern the Church in common with the Bishop, as saith S. Hierom, viz. where there was a Bishop, and where there was none they rul'd without him. * This indeed will call us to a new account, and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierome which I will set downe here,* 1.261 that wee may leave the sunne without a cloud. S. Ierom's words are these.

Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus, & an∣tequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fie∣rent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi Presbytero∣rum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquis{que} eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut u∣nus de Presbyter is electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur.

Then he brings some arguments to confirme his saying, and summes them up thus.

Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud veteres eos∣dem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, & ut E∣piscopi noverint se magis consuetudine quàm Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam re∣gere, &c.

The thing S. Hierome aymes to prove, is the iden∣tity of Bishop, Presbyter, and their government of

the Church in common. * For their identity, It is cleare that S. Hierome does not meane it in respect of order, as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia, one power; for else he contradicts himselfe most apertly, for in his Epistle ad Evagri∣um, Quid facit (saith he) Episcopus exceptâ ordi∣natione quòd Presbyter non faciat? A Presbyter may not ordayne, a Bishop does, which is a cleare difference of power, and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right [quod Presbyter non FA∣CIAT] not [non facit;] that a Priest may not, must not doe, that a Bishop does, viz. he gives holy or∣ders. * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not governe in common, but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyn'd in the common regiment and care of the Dio∣cesse, 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 on∣ly customary, & by actuall indulgence, or incroach∣ment, or positive constitution, and no matter of pri∣mitive and originall right, S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should, come what would have come. And suppose S. Hierome, in this distinct power of ordination had intended it onely to be a difference in fact, not in right (for so some of late have muttered) then S. Hierome had not said true according to his owne principles, for [Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non fa∣ciat?] had beene quickly answered, if the Question had onely beene de facto; For the Bishop governed

the Church alone, and so in Iurisdiction was grea∣ter then Presbyters, and this was by custome, and in fact at least, S. Hierome saies it, and the Bishop tooke so much power to himselfe, that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to doe any thing sine literis Episco, palibus, without leave of the Bishop, and this S. Hie∣rome complain'd of;* 1.262 so that de facto the power of ordination was not the onely difference: That then (if S. Hierome sayes true) being the onely difference betweene Presbyter and Bishop, must be meant de jure, in matter of right, not humane positive, for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdi∣ction which de facto, and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters, but Divine, and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's owne confession cannot be meant in res∣pect of order, but the Episcopacy is by Divine right a superiour order to the Presbyterate.

* Adde to this that the arguments which S. Hie∣rome 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 Epi∣stles to Timothy, and Titus, and some others, but all driving to the same issue. To what? Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters; For who doubts that? But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needes a proofe, and this he Undertooke. Now that they are so cal∣led must needes inferre an identity and a disparity in severall respects. An identity, at least of Names, for else it had beene wholly impertinent. A disparity,

or else his arguments were to prove idem affirma∣ri de eodem, which were a businesse next to telling pins. Now then this disparity must be either in or∣der, or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he meanes the orders to be disparate; If jurisdiction too, I am content, but the former is most certaine, if he stand to his owne principles.

This identity then which S. Hierome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter, must be either in Name or in Iurisdiction. I know not certainely which he meanes, for his arguments conclude onely for the i∣dentity of Names, but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction, & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, is the intent of his discourse. If he meanes the first, viz: that of Names, it is well enough, there is no harme done, it is in confesso apud omnes, but con∣cludes nothing (as I shall shew hereafter) but be∣cause he intends (so farre as may be guess'd by his words) a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction, this must be consider'd distinctly.

1. Then; in the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters, and inferiour Mi∣nisters with a power of baptizing, preaching, conse∣crating 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 Co∣rinth, at Rome, at Antioch.

2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands [There comes upon me (saith S. Paul) daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches] Not all absolutely,

for not all of the Circumcision, but all of his charge, with which he was once charged, and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And a∣gaine [If any man obey not our word,* 1.263 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifie him to me by an Epistle] so he charges the Thessalonians, and therefore of this Church, S. Paul as yet, clearely kept the power in his owne hands. So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it, govern'd by Episcopall, or Aposto∣licall authority.

3. For ought appeares in Scripture, the Apo∣stles never gave any externall, or coercitive jurisdicti∣on in publike, and criminall causes, nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies, or to inflict censures, to a Colledge of meere Presbyters. * The contrary may be greedily swallowed, and I know not with how great confidence, and prescribing prejudice; but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ, any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter, or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop, or expresse delegation of Apostolicall autho∣rity (tanquam vi••ario suo, as to his substitute in ab∣sense of the Bishop or Apostle) to inflict any censures, or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi ab∣sentis, but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination, or any commission, from Christ or his Apostles.

This we may best consider by induction of par∣ticulars.

1. There was a Presbytery at Ierusalem, but they had a Bishop alwayes, and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes, therefore whatsoever act they did, it was in conjunction with, and subordination to the Bishop & Apostles. Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ieru∣salem, and also had power alone to governe the Church. I say they had power to governe alone, for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters, that is be∣fore there were any of capacity to joyne with them, they must doe it themselves, and then also they must retaine the same power, for they could not loose it by giving Orders. Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction, then the Presbyters being in some pub∣like acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Or∣der, they onely assisting in subordination, and by dependency.

This onely by the way; In Ierusalem the Pres∣byters were some thing more then ordinary, and were not meere Presbyters in the present, and limited sense of the word. For Barnabas, and Iudas, and Silas [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 S. Luke calls them] were of that Presbytery.* 1.264 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They were Rulers, and Prophets, Chiefe men amongst the Brethren, & yet called Elders, or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Oe••umenius.* 1.265 For truth is, that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vulimited jurisdiction, not fix'd upon any See, that

they also might together with the twelve, exire in totum mundum. * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters, as Barnabas, and Iudas, and Silas, men of Apostolicall power, and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve, and with the Bishop, they were of equall power, not by vertue of their Presbyterate, but by their Aposto∣late; or if they were but meere Presbyters, yet be∣cause it is certaine, and proov'd, and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church a∣lone, this their taking meere Presbyters in partem regiminis, was a voluntary act, and from this ex∣ample was derived to other Churches, and then it is most true, that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere, was rather, consuetudine Ecclesiae, then domi∣nicae dispositionis veritate, (to use S. Hierom's owne expression) for this is more evident then that Bi∣shops, doe eminere caeteris, by custome rather then Divine institution. For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone, then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles, and although fitting to be retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine, and circumstances concurre, yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order; not, Dominicae dispositionis veritate, and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes.

2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch, but there we find no acts either of concurrent,* 1.266 or single jurisdiction, but of ordination indeed we doe, and that performed by such men as S. Paul was, and

Barnabas, for they were two of the Prophets recko∣ned in the Church of Antioch, but I doe not remem∣ber them to be called Presbyters in that place, to be sure they were not meere Presbyters as we now Un∣derstand the word, as I proved formerly.

3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops,* 1.267 and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God. This must doe it or nothing. In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Epis∣copos, In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bi∣shops. There must lay the exigence of the argument, and if we can find who is meant by [Vos] we shall, I hope, gaine the truth. * S. Paul sent for the Presby∣ters, or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. * * It's true, but that's not all the [vos], For there were present at that Ser∣mon, Sopater, and Aristarchus, and Secundus, and Gaius,* 1.268 and Timothy, and Tychicus, and Trophimus; And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropo∣lis, 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 Scrip∣ture sense, the lessar Asia. For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates [ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have beene with you at all seasons] His whole conversati∣on in Asia was not confin'd to Ephesus,* 1.269 and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all, and therefore were of dispersed habitation, and so it is more clearely infer'd from vers. 25. And

now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God &c: It was a travaile to preach to all that were present, and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant.

Now upon this ground I will raise these conside∣rations.

1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture, particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter, as it is con∣tended for, on one side, and granted on all sides, then where both the words are used, what shall de∣termine the signification? For whether (to instance in this place) shall Presbyter limit Episcopus, or E∣piscopus extend Presbyter? Why may not Presbyter signify one that is verily a Bishop, as Episcopus sig∣nify a meere Presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, where ever Presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sense, and not to doe so with Episcopus, and when they are joyned toge∣ther, rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of Presbyter, then in the proper and present sense of Episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the termes. These men sent for from Ephesus, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elders or Presby∣ters of the Church, but at Miletus, Spiritus S. posu∣it vos Episcopos, there they are called Bishops or o∣verseers. So that I may as well say here were pro∣perly so called Bishops, as another may say, here were meere Presbyters. * And least it be objected in pre∣judice of my affirmative, that they could not be Bi∣shops, because they were of Ephesus, there never be∣ing

but one Bishop in one Church. I answer, that in the Apostles times this was not true. For at Ierusa∣lem there were many at the same time that had E∣piscopall, and Apostolicall authority, and so at Anti∣och; as at Ierusalem, where Iames, and Iudas, and Silas, and the Apostles, and Paul and Barnabas at An∣tioch, and at Rome, at the same time Peter and Paul, and Linus, and Clemens, but yet but one of them was fixt, and properly the Bishop of that place. But 2^ly All these were not of Ephesus, but the Elders of all Asia, but some from other countries as appears vers. 4. So that although they were all Bishops, wee might easily find distinct Diocesses for them, without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multi∣plyed incumbency. Thus farre then we are upon even termes, the community of compellations used here, can no more force us to believe them all to be meere Presbyters, then Bishops in the proper sense.

2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his fare-well Sermon, for S. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a Bishop by abun∣dant testimony, and many of those which are recko∣ned v. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey, and imployed in mission Apostolicall for the founding of Churches, and particularly, Sosipater was there, and he was Bishop of Iconium, and Tychi∣cus of Chalcedon in Bythinia,* 1.270 as Dorotheus and Eu∣sebius witnesse; and Trophimus of Arles in France, for so is witnessed by the suffragans of that pro∣vince in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presby∣ters,

for besides the premises we have a witnesse be∣yond exception,* 1.271 the ancient S. Irenaeus, In Mileto e∣nim conv••catis Episcopis, & Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso, & à reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere, &c. S. Paul making hast to keep his Pentecost at Ierusa∣lem, at Miletus, did call together the Bishops and Presbyters, from Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cit∣ties. * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke, and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had con∣credited his Church to be fed, and taught with Pa∣storall supravision, but in the mean while here is no commission of power, or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly, nor supposition of any such praeexistent power.

3. All that S. Paul said in this narration, was spoken in the presence of them all, but not to them all. For that of v. 18. [ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons,] that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage, viz. in a collective sense, not in a distri∣butive, for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travailes; but this was not spoken to Sopa∣ter the Beraean, or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus, and Trophimus, who were Asians it might be addressed. And for that of v. 25. [yee all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more,] this was directed only to the Asians, for he was never more to come thither; but Timothy to be sure, saw him afterwards, for S. Paul sent for him, a litle before his death, to Rome, and it will not

be supposed he neglected to attend him. So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops, and Presbyters at this meeting, as most certainly there was, and of Evangelists, and Apostolicall men besides, how shall it be known, or indeed with any probability suspe∣cted that, that clause of vers. 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei, does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters, and not particularly to Ti∣mothy, who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus, and to Gajus, and to the other Apostolicall men who had at least Episcopall authority, that is, power of founding, and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction?

4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all in∣timated de antiquo, or concredited de novo, or if there be, it is in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 v. 28. Bishops, and Feeders; and then it belongs either to the Bishops alone, or to the Presbyters in conjuncti∣on with, and subordination to the Bishops, for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertaine, by any intination of that place.

5. How and if these Presbyters, which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus? Then also this way all difficul∣ty will be removed. And that so it was is more then probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entring, and fixing upon his See; and it was consonant to the practise of the Apostles, and the exigence of the thing it selfe, when they were to leave a Church to fixe a Bishop in it; for why else was a Bishop fixt in Ierusa∣lem, so long before in other Churches, but because

the Apostles were to be scattered from thence, and there the first bloudy field of Martyrdome was to be fought. And the case was equall here, for S. Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more, and he foresaw that ravening wolves would enter into the folds, and he had actually plac'd a Bishop in Ephesus, and it is unimaginable, that he would not make equall provision for other Churches, there being the same necessity from the same danger, in them all, and either S. Paul did it now, or never; and that about this time the other sixe Asian Churches had Angels, or Bishops set in their candlesticks, is plain, for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus, Antipas was dead, and S. Timothy had sate in Ephesus, and S. Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before S. Iohn writ his Revelation.

6. Lastly, that no jurisdiction was in the Ephe∣sine Presbyters, except a delegate, and subordinate, appeares beyond all exception, by S. Pauls first epi∣stle to Timothy, establishing in the person of Timo∣thy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presby∣ters, and ordination in him alone, without the con∣junction of any in commission with him, for ought appeares either there, or else-where.

* 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare. For what power had they of Iurisdiction? For that is it, we now speak of. If they had none before S. Titus came, we are well e∣nough 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 Presby∣ters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminall e∣quall to Titus after his coming, or they had not. If they had, then what did Titus doe there? If they had not, then either they had no jurisdiction at all, or whatsoever it was, it was in subordination to him, they were his inferiours, and he their ordinary Iudge and Governour.

5. One thing more before this be left, must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth, for there was power of excommunication in the Pres∣bytery when they had no Bishop, for they had none of diverse yeares after the founding of the Church, and yet S. Paul reprooves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church.

* This is it that I said before, that the A∣postles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church, and placed no Bishop. For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himselfe the sole Iudge.* 1.272 [For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged alrea∣dy] and then secondly,* 1.273 S. Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause [In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and MY SPIRIT, that is, My power, My authority, for so he explaines himselfe, MY SPIRIT, WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST, to deliver him over to Satan. And 3. As all this power is delegate, so it is but declarative in the Corinthians, for S. Paul had given sentence before, and they of Corinth

were to publish it. 4. This was a commission gi∣ven to the whole assembly, and no more concernes the Presbyters, then the people, and so some have contended; but so it is, but will serve neither of their turnes, neither for an independant Presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for S. Paul's reprooving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant, I have often heard it confidently averred, but never could see ground for it. The suspicion of it is v. 2. [And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU] Taken away. But by whom? That's the Question. Not by them, to be sure. For TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU, implies that it is by the power of another, not by their act, for no man can take away any thing from himselfe. He may put it away, not take it, the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning. * Well then: In all these instances, viz. of Ierusa∣lem, 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 ori∣ginally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop, or in the Bishop when there was any; And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affaires I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary as∣suming them, in partem sollicitudinis, and by dele∣gation of power Apostolicall, or Episcopall, and by way of assistance in acts deliberative, and consilia∣ry, though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem, where I prooved that the El∣ders

were men of more power then meere Presby∣ters, men of Apostolicall authority. But here lies the issue, and straine of the Question.

Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes crimi∣nall, and pertaining to the publick regiment of the Church, by vertue of their order, or without parti∣cular substitution, and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to meere Presbyters, no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery; no constituti∣on Apostolicall, that meere Presbyters should either alone, or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church; no example in all Scripture of any cen∣sure inflicted by any meere Presbyters, either upon Clergy or Laity; no specification of any power that they had so to doe; but to Churches where Col∣ledges of Presbyters were resident, Bishops were sent by Apostolicall ordination; not only with power of imposition of hands, but of excommunication, of taking cognisance even of causes, and actions of Presbyters themselves, as to Titus, and Timothy, the Angell of the Church of Ephesus; and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presby∣ters were fix't, as in the case of the Corinthian de∣linquent before specified, which delegation was needlesse, if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter, or a whole Col∣ledge of them.

Now then, returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying: The Church was governed (saith

he) communi Presbyterorum consilio, by the com∣mon Counsell of the Presbyters. But,

1. Quo jure was this? That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presby∣ters, by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hie∣rome affirmes; but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custome and condescen∣sion rather then by Divine disposition? S. Hierome does not say but it was. For he speakes onely of matter of fact, not of right, It might have beene o∣therwise, though de facto it was so in some places.

* 2. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is true in the Church of Ierusalem, where the Elders were A∣postolicall men, and had Episcopall authority and something superadded, as Barnabas, and Iudas and Silas, for they had the authority and power of Bi∣shops, and an unlimited Diocesse besides, though af∣terwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth. But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop, who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdi∣ction, and therefore does clearely evince, that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument a∣gainst the superiority of a Bishop over them.

* 3. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is also true, because the Apostles call'd themselves Presby∣ters, as S. Peter, and S. Iohn, in their Epistles. Now at the first, many Prophets, many Elders (for the words are sometimes us'd in common) were for a while resident in particular Churches, and did go∣verne in common; As at Antioch were Barnabas,

and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaën, and Paul. Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all these were Presbyters, in the sense that S. Peter and S. Iohn were, and the Elders of the Church of Ieru∣salem.

* 4. Suppose this had beene true in the sense that any body please to imagine, yet this not being by any divine ordinance, that Presbyters should by their Counsell assist in externall regiment of the Church, neither by any intimation of Scripture, nor by affirmation of S. Hierome, it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose,* 1.274 Postquàm omni∣bus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata, alitèr composita res est quàm caperat. It might be so at first de facto, and yet no need to be so neither then, nor after. For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of it's owne, nor Crete, and there was no need, for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them, and S. Iohn, and other of the Apostles, but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither; for when themselves were to goe away, the power must be concredited to a∣nother; And if they in their absence before the con∣stituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters, yet it was but in depen∣dance 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 Bi∣shop to reside.* 1.275 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So S. Ignati∣us being absent from his Church upon a businesse of

being persecuted, he writ to his Presbyters, Doe you feed the flock amongst you, till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler, viz. My Successor. No longer. Your commission expires when a Bi∣shop comes.

* 5. To the conclusion of S. Hieromes discourse, viz. That Bishops are not greater then Presbyters by the truth of divine disposition; I answer, that this is true in this sense, Bishops are not by Divine disposi∣tion greater then all those which in Scripture are cal∣led Presbyters, such as were the Elders in the Coun∣cell at Ierusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as S. Peter and S. Iohn, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all, and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sense, that is of a fixt and particular Diocesse, and Iurisdiction. * 2^ly S. Hieromes meaning is also true in this sense, [Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater then Presbyters,] viz. quoad exercitium actûs, that is, they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their owne persons, but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium, they may dele∣gate jurisdiction to the Presbyters; and that they did not so, but kept the exercise of it only in their owne hands in S. Hieromes time, this is it, which he saith is rather by custome, then by Divine dispensation, for it was otherwise at first, viz. de facto, and might be so still, there being no law of God against the de∣legation of power Episcopall. * As for the last words in the objection, [Et in communi debere Ec∣clesiam regere,] it is an assumentum of S. Hieromes owne; for all his former discourse was of the identity

of Names, and common regiment de facto, not de ju∣re, and from a fact to conclude with a Debere, is a Non sequitur, unlesse this Debere be understood ac∣cording to the exigence of the former arguments, that is, THEY OUGHT, not by Gods law, but in imi∣tation of the practise Apostolicall; to wit, when things are as they were then, when the Presbyters are such as then they were; THEY OUGHT, for many conside∣rations, and in Great cases, not by the necessity of a Divine precept.

* And indeed to doe him right he so explaines himselfe, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen qui cùm haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret.] The Presbyters ought to Iudge in common with the Bishop, for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses, who might have rul'd alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himselfe on∣ly to rule in chiefe. Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops doe, but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them, and therefore though his Councell perhaps might be good then, yet it is necessary at no time, and was not followed then, and to be sure is needlesse now. * For the ar∣guments which S. Hierome uses to prove this his in∣tention what ever it is, I have and shall else where produce, for they yeeld many other considerations then this collection of S. Hierome, and prove no∣thing lesse then the equality of the offices of Episco∣cy and Presbyterate. The same thing is per omnia respondent to the paralell place ofa 1.276 S. Chrysostome,

It is needlesse to repeat either the objection, or an∣swer.

* But however this saying of S. Hierome, and the paralell of S. Chrysostome is but like an argument a∣gainst an Evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be kill'd by the adverse party, or to runne upon their owne Swords; For either they are to be understood in the senses above explicated, and then they are imperti∣nent, or else they contradict evidence of Scrip∣ture and Catholike antiquity, and so are false, and dye within their owne trenches.

I end this argument of tradition Apostolicall with that saying of S. Hierome in the same place. Postquam Vnusquis{que} eos quos baptiz abat suos put abat esse, non Christi, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pau∣li, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cepha, in toto orbe decre∣tum est ut Vnus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeter is, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. That is, a publike decree issued out in the Apostles times, that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Cler∣gy, and set over them, viz. to rule and governe the flock commited to his charge. This I say was in the Apostles times, even upon the occasion of the Corin∣thian schisme, for then they said I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and then it was, that he that baptized any Catechumens, tooke them for his owne not as Christs disciples. So that it was, tempore Apostolo∣rum, that this decree was made, for in the time of the Apostles S. Iames, and S. Marke, and S. Timothy, and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieromes expresse

attestation; It was also [toto orbe decretum] so that if it had not beene proved to have beene an imme∣diate Divine institution, yet it could not have gone much lesse, it being, as I have proved, and as S. Hie∣rome acknowledges CATHOLIKE, and APOSTO∣LICK. *

BEe ye followers of me as I am of Christ,* 1.277 is an Apostolicall precept. We have seene how the Apostles have follow∣ed Christ, how their tradition is con∣sequent of Divine institution; Next let us see, how the Church hath fol∣lowed the Apostles, as the Apostles have followed Christ. CATHOLIKE PRACTISE is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy. And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for redu∣ction of the state Episcopall to a primitive consi∣stence, and for the confirmation of all those pious sonnes of Holy Church, who have a venerable esti∣mate of the publike and authoriz'd facts of Catho∣like Christendome.

* For Consider we, Is it imaginable, that all the world should immediately after the death of the A∣postles conspire together to seek themselves, and not, caquae sunt Iesu Christi; to erect a government of their owne devising, not ordayn'd by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a Di∣vine foundation, and the Apostolicall superstructure, which if it was at all, was a part of our Masters will, which whosoever knew, and observed not, was to be beaten with many stripes? Is it imaginable, that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilisme to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity, without evidence of Miracle, and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles, should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity, make an Universall dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will, and leave Gentilisme to destroy Christianity, for he that e∣rects another Oeconomy then what the Master of the family hath ordayn'd, destroyes all those rela∣tions of mutuall dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian con∣gregation or family?

* Is it imaginable, that all those glorious Mar∣tyrs, that were so curious observers of Divine San∣ctions, and Canons Apostolicall, that so long as that ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from bloud was of force, they would rather dye then eat a strangled hen, or a pudding, (for so Eu∣sebius relates of the Christians in the particular in∣stance

of Biblis and Blandina) that they would be so sedulous in the contemning the government that Christ left for his family, and erect another?

* To what purpose were all their watchings, their banishments, their fears, their fastings, their penances and formidable austerities, and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes, of what excellen∣cy or availe, if after all, they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions, by untimely, by disgracefull, by dolourous deaths, to be set before a tribunall to give account of their universall neglect, and contemning of Christs last testament, in so great an affaire, as the whole go∣vernment of his Church?

* If all Christendome should be guilty of so o∣pen, so united a defiance against their Master, by what argument, or confidence can any misbeliever be perswaded to Christianity, which in all its mem∣bers for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution, as in its most publike affaire, and for matter of order of the most generall concernement, is so contrary to the first birth?

* Where are the promises of Christ's perpetu∣all 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 errour, as to erect a throne where Christ had made all levell, or appointed others to sit in it, then whom he suffers. * Either Christ hath left no government, or most certainly the Church hath re∣tain'd that Government whatsoever it is, for the

contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident, or the Catholick Church extreamely negligent (to say no worse) and incurious of her depositum. * But upon the confidence of all * Christendome (if there were no more in it) I * suppose we may fairely venture. Sit anima mea * cum Christianis.

THE first thing done in Christendome,* 1.278 upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopa∣cy, is the distinguishing of Names, which before were common. For in holy Scripture all the names of Clericall offices were given to the superiour or∣der, and particularly all offices, and parts, and per∣sons design'd in any imployment of the sacred Preist∣hood, were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium. And therefore least the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office, the wisdome of H. Church found it necessary to distin∣guish and separate orders, and offices by distinct and proper appellations. [For the Apostles did know by our Lord Iesus Christ that contentions would arise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the name of Episcopa∣cy,] saith S. Clement, and so it did in the Church of Corinth,* 1.279 as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath. But so it was.

1. The Apostles, which I have proved to be the supreame ordinary office in the Church, and to be succeeded in, we called in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elders or Presbyters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.280 saith S. Peter the Apostle, the Elders,

or Presbyters that are among you, I also who am an Elder, or Presbyter doe intreat. Such elders S. Peter spoke to, as he was himselfe, to wit, those to whom the regiment of the Church was committed, the Bi∣shops of Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bi∣thynia, that is to Timothy, to Titus, to Tycbicus, to Sosipater, to the Angells of the Asian Churches, and all others whom himselfe in the next words points out by the description of their office, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Feed the flock of God as Bishops, or being Bishops and overseers over it; And that to rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for it was impertinent to have war∣ned them of tyranny, that had no rule at all. * The meere Presbyters, I deny not, but are included in this admonition; for as their office is involved in the Bishops office, the Bishop being Bishop and Presby∣ter too, so is his duty also in the Bishops; so that, pro ratâ the Presbyter knowes what lies on him by pro∣portion and intuition to the Bishops admonition. But againe. * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Iohn the Apostle; and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Pres∣byter to Gajus; the Presbyter to the elect Lady.

2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters, no harme though Bishops be called so too, for Apostles, and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have pro∣ved formerly. Thus are those Apostolicall men in the Colledge at Ierusalem called Presbyters, whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, principall men, ruling men, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 neigh∣bouring Citties, ut solus quis{que} Episcopus praesit omni∣bus, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The one place expounds the other, for they are both ad idem, and speake of Elders of the same Church.

* 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters, yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished, that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops, unlesse it be in conjunction with Bishops, and then in the Ge∣nerall addresse, which, in all faire deportments, is made to the more eminent, sometimes Presbyters are, or may be comprehended. This observation if it prove true, will clearely show, that the confusion of names of Episcopus, and Presbyter, such as it is in Scripture, is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture, for the indistinction of offices, for even the names in Scripture it selfe are so distinguished, that a meere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop, but a Bishop an Apostle is often called a Presbyter, as in the instances above. But we will consider those places of Scripture, which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name, to confusion of things, and shew that they neither enterfere upon the maine Question, nor this observation. * Paul and Timotheus to all the saints which are in Christ Iesus which are at Philippi, with

the Bishops and Deacons. I am willinger to choose this instance, because the place is of much considera∣tion in the whole Question, and I shall take this oc∣casion to cleare it from prejudice and disadvan∣tage.

* By Bishops are here meant Presbyters, because * many Bishops in a Church could not be, and yet * S. Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the * Church of Philippi, and therefore must meane * meere Presbyters * so it is pretended.

1. Then; By [Bishops] are, or may be meant the whole superior order of the clergy, Bishops and Priests, and that he speaks plurally, he, may besides the Bishops in the Church, comprehend under their name the Presbyters too; for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office, and order, the inferiour under the superiour, the lesser within the greater; for since the order of Presbyters is in∣volved in the Bishops order, and is not only inclu∣sively 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 Bi∣shops.

* 2. Why may not [Bishops] be understood properly; For there is no necessity of admiitting that there were any meere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church, It can neither be proved from Scripture, not antiquity, if it were de∣nyed: For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episco∣pall

men as there were at Antioch, might doe all that Presbyters could, and much more. And conside∣ring that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply, and a Bishop can, it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter, then that there was no Bishop. And certainely it is most unlikely, that what is not expressed, to wit, Presbyters should be onely meant, and that which is expressed should not be at all intended.

* 3. [With the Bishops] may be understood in the proper sense, and yet no more Bishops in one Diocesse then one, of a fixt residence; for in that sense is S. Chrysostome and the fathers to be under∣stood in their commentaries on this place,* 1.281 affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop; but then take this along, that it was not then unusuall in such great Churches, to have many men who were tem∣porary residentiaries, but of an Apostolicall and E∣piscopall authority, as in the Churches of Ierusalem, Rome, Antioch, there was as I have proved in the premises. Nay in Philippi it selfe, If I mistake not, as instance may be given, full, and home to this purpose. Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus, Bitus, De∣mas, 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 Bi∣shops then one, in a Diocesse. No? By what law? If

by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times, that hinders not, but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times. If by a Law in the Apostles times, then we have obtained the main question by the shift, and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one, and but one Bishop in a Church, al∣though it is evident they appointed many Presby∣ters. And then let this objection be admitted how it will, and doe its worst, we are safe enough.

* 5. [With the Bishops] may be taken distribu∣tively, for Philippi was a Metropolis, and had di∣verse Bishopricks under it, and S. Paul writing to the Church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit, and therefore might well salute many Bishops, though writing to one Me∣tropolis, and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius, for he reads it not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Co∣episcopi••, & Diaconis, Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi, and to our fellow Bishops.

* 6. S. Ambrose referres this clause of [Cum E∣piscopis, & Diaconis,] to S. Paul and S. Timothy,* 1.282 in∣timating that the benediction, and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from S. Paul and S. Ti∣mothy with the Bishops and Deacons, so that the rea∣ding must be thus; Paul, and Timothy with the Bi∣shops and Deacons, to all the Saints at Philippi &c. Cum Episcopis & Diaconis, hoc est, cum Paulo, & Timotheo, qui uti{que} Episcopi erant, simul & significa∣vit 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.

* 1.283 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians, which may give ano∣ther light to this; speaking of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons. Bishops here indeed may be taken di∣stributively, and so will not inferre that many Bi∣shops were collectively in any one Church, but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians. For here either Presby∣ters are meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ministers, or else Presby∣ters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiasticall pro∣vision, which no man imagines, of what interest so∣ever he be; it followes then that [Bishops and Dea∣cons] are no more but Majores, and Minores Sacer∣dotes in both places; for as Presbyter, and Episcop••s were confounded, so also Presbyter and Diaconus; And I thinke it will easily be shewen in Scripture, that the word [Diaconus,] is given oftner to Apo∣stles, and Bishops, and Presbyters, then to those mi∣nisters which now by way of appropriation we call Deacons. But of this anon. Now againe to the main observation.

* 1.284 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 or∣ders and officers, gives directions first for Bishops, then for Deacons. Where are the Presbyters in the

interim? Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons. They may as well be in one as the other; for [Diaconus] is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy, then Episcopus to the Superiour, nor so much neither. For Episcopus was never us'd in the new Testament for any, but such, as had the care, regiment, and supra-vision of a Church, but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries.

But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus, yet it is not because the offices and orders are one, but because that the or∣der of a Presbyter is comprehended within the di∣gnity of a Bishop. And then indeed the compellation is of the more principall, and the Presbyter is also comprehended, for his conjunction, and involution in the Superiour, which was the principall observa∣tion here intended. Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps est Sa∣cerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera ad∣implenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium.* 1.285 saith S. Ambrose.* 1.286 So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop, he intends to qualifie Presbyters also, then it is Principally intended for a Bishop, and of the Presbyters only by way of subor∣dination and comprehension. This only by the way, because this place is also abused to other issues; To be sure it is but a vaine dreame that because Presby∣ter is not nam'd, that therefore it is all one with a Bishop, when as it may be comprehended under Bi∣shop as a part in the whole, or the inferiour, within the

superiour, (the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more) or else it may be as well intended in the word [Deacons,] and rather then the word, [Bishop] 1. Because [Bi∣shop] is spoken of in the singular number, [Deacons] in the Plurall, and so liker to comprehend the mul∣titude of Presbyters. 2. Presbyters, or else Bishops, and therefore much more Presbyters, are called by S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ministers, Deacons is the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deacons by whose Ministra∣tion yee beleived; and 3. By the same argument Dea∣cons may be as well one with the Bishop too, for in the Epistle to Titu••, S. Paul describes the office of a Bishop, and sayes not a word more either of Pres∣byter or Deacons office; and why I pray, may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be o∣mitted, as well as Presbyters, and Deacons too in that to Titus? or else why may not Deacons be con∣founded, and be all one with Bishop, as well as Pres∣byter? It will, it must be so, if this argument were any thing else but an aëry and impertinent nothing.

After all this yet, it cannot be showne in Scrip∣ture that any one single, and meere Presbyter is cal∣led a Bishop, but may be often found that a Bishop, nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter, as in the instan∣ces above, and therefore since this communication of Names is onely in descension, by reason of the involution, or comprehension of Presbyter within (Episcopus), but never in ascension, that is, an Apo∣stle, or a Bishop, is often called Presbyter, and Dea∣con, and Prophet, and Pastor, and Doctor, but never

retrò, that a meere Deacon or a meere Presbyter, should be called either Bishop, or Apostle, it can ne∣ver be brought either to depresse the order of Bi∣shops below their throne, or erect meere Presbyters above their stalls in the Quire. For we may as well confound Apostle, and Deacon, and with clearer probability, then Episcopus, and Presbyter. For A∣postles, and Bishops, are in Scripture often called Deacons. I gave one instance of this before, but there are very many. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was said of S. Matthias when he succeded Iudas in the Aposto∣late. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said S. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus.* 1.287 S. Paul is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Deacon of the New Testament,* 1.288 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is said of the first founders of the Corin∣thian Church; Deacons by whom ye beleived. Paul and Apollos were the men. It is the observation of S. Chrysostome,* 1.289 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And a Bishop was called a Deacon, wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop, Fulfill thy Deaconship.

* Adde to this, that there is no word, or desig∣nation of any Clericall office, but is given to Bi∣shops, and Apostles. The Apostles are called [Pro∣phets] Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch, were Lucius and Manaën, and Paul and Barnabas; and then they are called [Pastors] too; and indeed, hoc ipso that they are Bishops, they are Pastors. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos PASCERE ECCLESIAM DEI. Where∣upon trhe Geeke Scholiast expounds the word [Pa∣stors]

to signifie Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And ever since that S. Peter set us a copie in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Sheapherd, and Bi∣shop of our soules, it hath obtayned in all antiquity, that Pastors and Bishops are coincident, and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary.

* If Bishops be Pastors, then they are Doctors al∣so, for these are conjunct, when other offices which may in person be united, yet in themselves are made disparate;* 1.290 For [God hath given some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some PASTORS AND TEACHERS.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If Pastors, then also Doctors, and Teachers. And this is observed by S. Austin.* 1.291

Pastors, & Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish, I think are one and the same.

For Paul doth not say; some Pastors, some Doctors, but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors, that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach. The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place.

Thus it was in Scripture; But after the Churches were setled & Bishops fix't upon their severall Sees, then the Names also were made distinct, only those names which did designe temporary offices did ex∣pire 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith S. Chrysostome, Thus farre the names were common, viz. in the sense above explicated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But imme∣diately the names were made proper and distinct, and to every order it's owne Name is left, of a Bishop to a Bishop, of a Presbyter to a Presbyter. * This could

not be suppos'd at first, for when they were to bor∣row words from the titles of secular honour, or of∣fices, and to transplant them to an artificiall, and im∣posed sense; USE, which is the Master of language, must rule us in this affaire, and USE is not contra∣cted but in some processe, and descent of time. * For at first, Christendome it selfe wanted a Name, and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Chri∣st'ned first in Antioch, for they had their baptisme some yeares before they had their Name. It had been no wonder then, if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the offices and orders of the Church.

BVt immediately after the Apostles,* 1.292 and still more in descending 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the ••••rch, the Bishop in the pre∣sent, & vulgar concept•••• ••ome few examples I shal give insteed of Myriads 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canons of the Apo∣stles the word '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••••shop is us'd 36 times in appropriation to him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ordinary Ruler & president of the Church above the Clergie and the Laity, being 24 times expressely distinguish'd from Presbyter, and in the other 14 having particular care for government, jurisdiction, censures and Ordina∣tions committed to him as I shall shew hereafter, and all this is within the verge of the first 50 which are received as Authentick, by the Councell of a 1.293 Nice; ofb 1.294 Antioch, 25 Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles: the Councell of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos, and Apo∣stolicas

traditiones; by the Epistle of the first Coun∣cell of Constantinople to Damasus, which Theodoret hath inserted into his story; by thec 1.295 Councell of E∣phesus; byd 1.296 Tertullian; bye 1.297 Constantine the Great; and are sometimes by way of eminency called THE CANONS, sometimes, THE ECCLESIASTICALL CANONS, sometimes, the ancient and received Ca∣nons, of our Fathers, sometimes the Apostolicall Ca∣nons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.298 said the Fathers of the Councell in Trullo: and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture: so in effect does Isidore in his preface to the worke of the Councells, for he sets these Canons in front, because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones. The H. Fa∣thers have established these Canons by the authority of Councells, and have put them amongst the Canoni∣call Constitutions. And great reason, for in Pope Ste∣phens time, they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius,* 1.299 because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous. Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephens time, who was contempora∣ry with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian, the old copie, el∣der then this, and yet after the Originall to be sure, shewes them to be of prime antiquity, and they are mention'd by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bi∣shop Hilarius, where he is severe in censure of them who doe prevaricate these Canons.

* But for farther satisfaction I referre the Rea∣der to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Mo∣derators of the Citie of Norimberg. I deny not but they are called Apocryphall by Gratian, and some o∣thers, viz. in the sense of the Church, just as the wisdome of Solomon, or Ecclesiasticus, but yet by most, beleived to be written by S. Clement, from the dictate of the Apostles, and without all Question, are so farre Canonicall, as to be of undoubted Ec∣clesiasticall authority, and of the first Antiquity.

Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in au∣thority,* 1.300 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Fa∣ther of all. And a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. What is the Bishop, but he that hath all authority and rule? What is the Presbytery, but a sacred Colledge, Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop? what are Deacons &c: So that here is the reall, and exact distinction of dignity, the ap∣propriation of Name, and intimation of office. The Bishop is above all, the Presbyters his helpers, the Deacons his Ministers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imitators of the Angells who are Ministring Spirits. But this is of so known, so evident a truth, that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it. Him∣selfe in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in di∣stinct 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 Pres∣byter were distinct in the beginning after the Apo∣stles death, yet sometimes the names are used pro∣miscuously, which is an evidence, that confusion of names is no intimation, much lesse an argument for the parity of offices, since themselves, who some∣times though indeed very seldome, confound the names, yet distinguish the offices frequently, and dogmatically.* 1.301 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria, yet the o∣ther may be fairely admitted, for himselfe their Bi∣shop was absent from his Church, and had delega∣ted to the Presbytery Episcopall jurisdiction to rule the Church till hee being dead another Bishop should be chosen, so that they were Episcopi Vicarii, and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this was done least the Church should not be only without a Father, but without a Guardian too; & yet what a Bishop was, and of what authority no man more confident and frequent then Ignatius. * Another example of this is in Eusebius, speaking of the youth whom S. Iohn had converted and commended to a Bishop. Cle∣mens, whose story this was, proceeding in the rela∣tion saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&c. But the Presbyter; un∣lesse by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] The old man, Tum verò PRESBYTER in domum suam sus∣cipit adolescentem. Redde depositum, O EPISCOPE, saith S. Iohn to him. Tunc graviter suspirans SENI∣OR &c. So S. Clement. * But this, as it is very un∣usuall, so it is just as in Scripture, viz. in descent and comprehension, for this Bishop also was a Presbyter, as well as Bishop, or else in the delegation of Episcopall power, for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius.

2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was cho∣sen to be appropriate to the supreame order of the Clergy, was done with faire reason and designe. For this is no fastuous, or pompous title, the word is of no dignity, and implies none but what is con∣sequent to the just and faire execution of its offices. But Presbyter is a name of dignity and vene••ation, Rise up to the gray head, and it transplants the ho∣nour and Reverence of age to the office of the Pres∣byterate. And yet this the Bishops left, and took that which signifies a meere supra-vision, and over∣looking 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.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Saith S. Chrysostome. Nec dicit si quis Epis∣copatum 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 honoura∣ble

title, but a good office, and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent vertues. But for this we need no better testimony then of S. Isidore. Episco∣patus autem vocabulum inde dictum,* 1.302 quòd ille qui su∣perefficitur superintendat, curam scil. gerens subdi∣torum. But, Presbyter Grecè, latinè senior interpre∣tatur, non pro atate, vel decrepitâ senectute, sed pro∣pter honorem & dignitatem quam acceperunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith; Iulius Pollux.

3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture, and Antiqui∣ty, and that, both in ascension and descension, yet as Priests may be called Angells, and yet the Bishop be THE ANGEL of the Church, [THE ANGEL,] for his excellency, [OF THE CHURCH,] for his ap∣propriate preheminence, and singularity, so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture (of which there is not one example but in the senses a∣bove explicated, to wit, in conjunction and com∣prehension;) yet the Bishop is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by way of eminence, THE BISHOP: and in descent of time, it came to passe, that the compellation, which was al∣waies his, by way of eminence was made his by ap∣propriation. And a faire precedent of it wee have from the compellation given to our blessed Savi∣our, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The great sheapheard, and Bishop of our soules. The name [Bi∣shop] was made sacred by being the appellative of his person, and by faire intimation it does more im∣mediatly descend upon them, who had from Christ

more immediate mission, and more ample power, and therefore [Episcopus] and [Pastor] by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church have the greatest power, office and dignity, as participating of the fulnesse of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our soules. * And besides this so faire a Copy; besides the useing of the word in the pro∣phecy of the Apostolate of Matthias, and in the prophet Isaiah, and often in Scripture, as I have showne before; any one whereof is abundantly e∣nough, for the fixing an appellative upon a Church officer; this name may also be intimated as a distin∣ctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest, be∣cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops, as in the instances above, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for the office of the inferiours, for S. Paul writing to the Romans, who then had no Bishop fixed in the chaire of Rome,* 1.303 does command them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this for the Bishop, that for the subordinate Clergy. So then, the word [Episcopus] is fixt at first, and that by de∣rivation, and example of Scripture, and faire con∣gruity of reason.

BVt the Church used other appellatives for Bi∣shops,* 1.304 which it is very requisite to specifie, that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fa∣thers useing those words in appropriation to Bi∣shops, which of late have bin given to Presbyters, ever

since they have begun to set Presbyters in the roome of Bishops.

And first, Bishops were called [Pastors] in anti∣quity, in imitation of their being called so in Scripture. Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignati∣us,* 1.305 Deni{que} cùm Smyrnam venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios, eorum{que} Pa∣storem, that is,* 1.306 Onesimus, for so followes, in quâ me∣minit Onesimi. Now that Onesimus was their Bi∣shop, himselfe witnesses in the Epistle here mentio∣ned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Onesimus was their Bishop, and therefore their Pastor, and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himselfe makes mention of Evodius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 your most Bles∣sed and worthy PASTOR.

* When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the divinity of our blessed Saviour, presently a Councell was called where S. Denis Bi∣shop of Alexandria could not be present, Caeteri verò Ecclesiarum PASTORES diversis è locis & urbibus . . . . convenerunt Antiochiam. In quibus insignes & caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesareâ Cap∣padociae, Gregorius,* 1.307 & Athenodorus Fratres . . . . & Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus. . . . Sed & Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum con∣sortio cohaerehat. These Bishops, Firmilianus, and Helenus, and Maximus were the PASTORS; and not only so, but Presbyters were not called PAS∣TORS, for he proceedes, sed & Prebyteri quamplu∣rimi, & Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem. . . . convene∣runt.

So that these were not under the generall ap∣pellative of Pastors.* 1.308 * And the Councell of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widdow-Church, when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop, if any of the Comprovincialls be wanting he must be cer∣tifi'd by the Primate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the multitude require a Pastor to be given vnto them. * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Iulius Bishop of Rome to the Presby∣ters, Deacons,* 1.309 and People of Alexandria in behalfe of their Bishop Athanasius, Suscipite ita{que} Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ PASTOREM VES∣TRUM AC PRAESULEM tanquam verè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And a litle after, & gaudere fruentes orationibus qui PAS∣TOREM VESTRUM esuritis & sititis &c: The same is often us'd in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen, where Bishops are called PASTORES MAGNI, Great sheapheards, or PASTORS; * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished, Vniversi lachrymis prosequuti sunt ereptionem PASTORIS sui, saith The∣odoret, they wept for the losse of their* 1.310 PASTOR. And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalfe of Christianity, & PAS∣TOREM (inquit) habemus, & nutus illius sequimur, we have a PASTOR (a Bishop certainely, for himselfe was a Priest) and his commands we follow. But,* 1.311 I need not specifie any more particular instances; I touch'd upon it before. * He that shall consider, that to Bishops the regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first, and the Presbyters were

but his assistants in Cities and Villages, and were admitted in partem sollicitudinis, first casually and cursorily, & then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided, and endowed, will easily see, that this word [Pastor] must needes be appro∣priated to Bishops to whom according to the con∣junctive expression of S. Peter, and the practise of infant Christendome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was in∣trusted, first solely, then in communication with o∣thers, but alwaies principally.

* But now of late, especially in those places where Bishops are exauctorated, and no where else, that I know, but amongst those men that have com∣plying designes, the word [Pastor] is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendome; and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited, subordinate sense, and by way of participation (just as they may be called Angels, when the Bishop is the Angell, and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor, and so they are called Pasto∣res ovium in S. Cyprian) but never are they called Pas∣tores simply,* 1.312 or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600 yeares in the Church, and I think 800 more. And therefore it was good counsell which S. Paul gave, to avoid vocum Novitates, because there is never a∣ny affectation of New words contrary to the An∣cient voice of Christendome, but there is some de∣signe 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,* 1.313 then Doctors also; it was the observation which S. Austin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now, [For God hath given some Apostles, some Prophets. . . . some Pastors and Doctors]. So the Church hath learn'd to speak. In the Greeks Councell of Carthage it was decreed, that places which never had a Bishop of their owne should not now have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a DOCTOR of their owne, that is a Bishop, but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocesse to whom formerly they gave obedience; and the title of the chapter is, that the parts of the Diocesse without the Bishops con∣sent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must not have another Bishop. He who in the title is called Bishop, in the chapter is called the DOCTOR. And thus also,* 1.314 Epi∣phanius speaking of Bishops calleth them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fathers and DOCTORS, Gratia enim Ec∣clesiae laus DOCTORIS est, saith S. Ambrose, speak∣ing of the eminence of the Bishop, over the Presby∣ters and subordinate Clergy. The same also is to be seen in S.* 1.315 Austin, Sedulius, and diverse others. I deny not but it is in this appellative, as in diverse of the rest, that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called DOCTORS, for every Presbyter must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.316 apt to teach (but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop) and no where expressely of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture, but yet because in all Churches, it was by license of the Bishop, that Presbyters did Preach, if at all, and in some Churches the Bishop only did it,

particularly of Alexandria (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.317 saith Sozomen) therefore it was that the Presbyter, in the language of the Church was not, but the Bishop, was often called, DOCTOR of the Church.

THe next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to expresse the offices and emi∣nence of Bishops,* 1.318 is PONTIFEX, and PONTIFICA∣TUS for Episcopacy. Sed à Domino edocti consequen∣tiam rerum, Episcopis PONTIFICATUS munera as∣signavimus, said the Apostles, as1 1.319 S. Clement re∣ports. PONTIFICALE 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 S. Iohn the Apostle wore in his forehead, as an Ensigne of his Apostle∣ship, a gold plate or medall, when he was IN PON∣TIFICALIBUS, in his pontificall or Apostolicall ha∣bit, saith Eusebius.2 1.320 * De dispensationibus Eccle∣siarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit & definitio SS. Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium. . . . & si PONTIFICES vo∣luerint, ut cum cis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes. Said the Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople.3 1.321 * Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quo{que} tertius post Paulum & Petrum, PON∣TIFICATUM tenebat, saith4 1.322 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 1.323 * And there is a famous story of Alex∣ander Bishop of Cappadocia, that when Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem, was invalid and unfit for go∣vernment by reason of his extreame age, he was

designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven, Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est; Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you, but it was when Narcissus jam senio fessus PONTIFICATUS Ministerio sufficere non posset, saith the story.6 1.324 * Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Prefect, that wish'd him to comply with the Emperour, ask'd him; Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam PONTIFICATUM est con∣sequutus? He hath an Empire, but hath he also a Bishoprick? PONTIFICATUS is the word. * But 7 1.325 S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of cleri∣call offices, and particularly gives this account of the present. Est igitur PONTIFICATUS ordo qui prae∣ditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt &c. And a little after, Sacerdotum autem ordo subje∣ctus PONTIFICUM ordini &c. To which agrees 8 1.326 S. Isidore in his etymologies, Ideo autem & Presby∣teri Sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum dant sicut & Episcopi, qui licet Sacerdotes sint, tamen PONTIFI∣CATUS apicem non habent, quia nec Chrismate fron∣tem signant, nec Paracletum spiritum dant, quod so∣lis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum de∣monstrat; and in the same chapter, PONTIFEX Prin∣ceps Sacerdotumest.

One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops,* 1.327 and that's SACERDOS. Sacerdotum au∣tem ••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 A∣postolicall Constitutions attributed toa 1.328 S. Clement,

Episcopis quidem assignavimus, & attribuimus quae ad PRINCIPATUM SACERDOTII pertinent, Pres∣byteris verò quae ad Sacerdotium. And inb 1.329 S. Cyprian, Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjun∣cti. But although in such distinction and subordina∣tion & in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes call∣ed Sacerdos, yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signify Episcopacy, and Sacerdos Ec∣clesiae the Bishop. Theotecnus SACERDOTIUM Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu, saithc 1.330 Eusebius, and summus Sacerdos, the Bishop alwaies, Dandi baptismum jus habet summus SACERDOS, qui est Episcopus, saith d 1.331 Tertullian: and indeed Sacerdos alone is very sel∣dome used in any respect but for the Bishop, unlesse when there is some distinctive terme, and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time.

Ecclesia est plebs SACERDOTI adunata, & Grex pastori suo adhaerens, saith S.e 1.332 Cyprian. And that we may know by [Sacerdos] he means the Bishop, his next words are, Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Eccle∣siâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo. And in the same E∣pistle, qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt, SAC••RDOTEM Dei agnoscentes, & con∣testantes. *f 1.333 Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Councell of Antioch, In quihus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus, & Nicomas ab Iconio, & Hierosolymorum PRAECI∣PUUS SACERDOS Hymenaeus, & vicinae huic urbis Caesareae Theotecnus; and in the same place the Bi∣shops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae SACER∣DOTES. Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecem annis

SACERDOTIO, ministrato diem obiit, for so long he was Bishop, cui succedit Cerdon tertius in SACER∣DOTIUM. Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim SA∣CERDOTIUM gerens, for he was Bishops of Hierapolis saithg 1.334 Eusebius, and theh 1.335 Bishops of the Province of Arles, speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus, or∣dained Bishop by S. Peter, say, quod prima inter Gal∣lias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro A∣postolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit SACER∣DOTEM. *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when ANTISTES Ecclesiae was the word.* 1.336 Melito quo{que} Sardensis Ecclesiae ANTISTES, saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the name in Greeke, and used for the Bishop by Iustin Martyr (and is of the same authority and use with PRAELATUS and praepositus Ecclesiae.) ANTISTES autem SACERDOS dictus, ab eo quod antestat. Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae; & suprase nullum habet,* 1.337 saith S. Isidore.

*** But in those things which are of no Questi∣on, 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 call∣ed PRIMUS PRESBYTER.* 1.338 Nam & Timotheum Epis∣copum à secreatum Presbyterum vocat: quia PRIMI PRESBYTERI Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Elections were made of Bi∣shops out of the Colledge of Presbyters (Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant, saith S. Hierome) but at first this election was made not ac∣cording to merit, but according to seniority, and therefore Bishops were called PRIMI PRESBYTE∣RI,

* 1.339 that's S. Ambrose his sense. But S. Austin gives another, PRIMI PRESBYTERI, that is chiefe above the Presbyters. Quid est Episcopus nisi PRIMUS PRESBYTER, h.e. summus Sacerdos (saith he) And S. Ambrose himselfe gives a better exposition of his words, then is intimated in that clause before, Epis∣copi,* 1.340 & Presbyteri una ordinatio est? Vter{que} enim Sa∣cer dos est, sed Episcopus PRIMUS est, ut omnis Episco∣pus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros PRIMUS est. The bishop is PRIMUS PRESBYTER, that is, PRI∣MUS SAC••RDOS, h. e. PRINCEPS EST SACERDO∣TUM,* 1.341 so he expounds it, not Princeps, or Primus IN∣TER PRESBYTEROS, himselfe remaining a meere Presbyter, but PRINCEPS PRESBYTERORUM; for PRIMUS PRESBYTER could not be Episcopus in ano∣ther sense, he is the chiefe, not the senior of the Presbyters. Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sense lower then Episcopus, for Theodoret speak∣ing of S. Iohn Chrysostome, saith, that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch, yet refused to be made Bishop, for a long time. Iohannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae, ac saepe ele∣ctus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit.

*** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae, meant the Bishop of the Diocesse. Of this there are innumerable ex∣amples, but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 23, 27 Epistles; and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres; and infinite places more. Of

which this advantage is to be made, that the Primi∣tive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates, or Praepositi, to be meant of Bishops; Obedite praepositis, Heb. 13. saith S. Paul, Obey your Prelates, or them that are set over you. Praepositi autem Pastores sunt, saith S. Austin, Prelates are they that are Pastors. But S. Cyprian summes up many of them together, and insinuates the severall relations, expressed in the severall com∣pellations of Bishops.* 1.342 For writing against Floren∣tius Pupianus, ac nisi (saith he) apud te purgati fue∣rimus. . . . 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 him∣selfe, who had then been sixe years Bishop of Car∣thage, a Prelate of the people, a governour to the Church, a Pastor to the flock, a Priest of the most high God, a Minister of Christ.

The summe is this; When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy, un∣der the names of Episcopus, or Princeps Sacerdo∣tum, or Presbyterorum primus, or Pastor, or Do∣ctor, or Pontifex, or Major, or Primus Sacerdos, or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens, or Antistes Ecclesiae, or Ecclesiae sacerdos; (unlesse there be a specification, and limiting of it to a parochiall, and inferior Mi∣nister) it must be understood of Bishops in its pre∣sent acceptation. For these words are all by way of eminency, and most of them by absolute appropri∣ation,

and singularity the appellations, and distin∣ctive names of Bishops.

BUT,* 1.343 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith the Phi∣losopher) and this their distinction of Names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling, and office, supere∣minent 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 con∣scientiam, &c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter, and Deacon, above thirty times in those Canons, and distinct powers given to the Bishop, which are not given to the o∣ther, and to the Bishop above the other. * The Councell of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Pres∣byters first,* 1.344 then Deacons which had faln in time of persecution, gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the paines as he sees cause. Sed si ex Episcopis ali∣qui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam. . . . viderint, in eo∣rum potestate id esse. The Canon would not sup∣pose any Bishops to fall, for indeed they seldome did, but for the rest, provision was made both for their penances, and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop. And yet sometimes they did fall, Op∣tatus bewailes it, but withall gives evidence of their distinction of order.* 1.345 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 ali∣qua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt. The Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presby∣ters, nay the Bishops themselves, the Princes and chiefe of all prov'd traditors. The diversity of or∣der is here fairely intimated, but dogmatically af∣firmed by him in his 2^d book adv. Parmen. Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ, Episcoporum, Pres∣byterorum, Diaconorum, & fidelium. There are foure sorts of heads in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters, Dea∣cons, and the faithfull Laity. And it was remarkable that when the people of Hippo had as it were by vi∣olence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius, some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office, thought he had wept because he was not Bishop, they pretending comfort told him,* 1.346 quia locus Pres∣byterii licet ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui. The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserv'd a greater, yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick. So Possidonius tells the story. It was the next step, the next in descent, in subordi∣nation, the next under it. So the Councell of Chal∣cedon,* 1.347 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is sacriledge to bring downe a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so the Councell permits in case of great delinquen∣cy, to suspend him from the execution of his Epis∣copall

order, but still the character remaines, and the degree of it selfe is higher.

* Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus (Fratres chariss.) quia novimus quàm Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium, quod & clero, & plebi de∣bet esse exemplo, said the Fathers of the Councell of Antioch,* 1.348 in Eusebius, The office of a Bishop is sacred, and exemplary both to the Clergy, and the People. In∣terdixit per omnia,* 1.349 Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Presbytero, non Diacono licere, &c. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop. Post Achillam enim Alexander. . . . ordinatur Episcopus. Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit, Alexander was or∣dain'd a Bishop, and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters. * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church. Iulius autem Ro∣manus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erant{que} pro••o praesentes Vitus, & Vincentius Presbyteri e∣jusdem Ecclesiae. They were his Vicars, and depu∣ties for their Bishop in the Nicene Councell, faith Sozomen.* 1.350 But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man. Many of them were put to death.* 1.351 Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcòpi, alii Presbyteri, alii diversorum ordinum Clerici. * And this difference of Order is cleare in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyri••um to the Bishops of the Levant, De Episcopis autem constituendis, vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint us{que} ad

finem sani, bene. . . . Similitèr Presbyteros at{que} Diaco∣nos in Sacerdotali ordine definivimus, &c. And of Sabbatius it is said, Nolens in suo ordine Manere Pres∣byteratus, desiderabat Episcopatum; he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter, but desir'd a Bishop∣rick. Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est,* 1.352 in Patri∣archis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, & Episco∣pis, saith S. Isidore; Omnes autem superiùs disignati ordines uno eodem{que} vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur.* 1.353 But it were infinite to reckon authorities, and clau∣ses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councells but we shall find it recorded: And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever ac∣knowledge, and publish it, that Episcopacy is a pe∣culiar office, and order in the Church of God; as is to be seen in their decretall Epistles, in the first tome of the Councells. * I onely summe this up with the attestation of the Church of England,* 1.354 in the preface to the book of ordination. It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these ORDERS of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same thing ex∣actly that was said in the second Councell of Car∣thage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.355 But wee shall see it better, and by more re∣all probation, for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this;

1. THe Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy,* 1.356 as Deaconship to the Presbyterate, and there∣fore the Councell of Sardis decreed, that no man should be ordain'd Bishop, but he that was first a Reader, and a Deacon, and a Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That by every degree he may passe to the sub∣limity of Episcopacy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and triall of no small time. Here there is clearely a distinction of orders, and ordinations, and assumptions to them respe∣ctively, all of the same distance and consideration; And Theodoret out of the Synodicall Epistle of the same Councell,* 1.357 saies that they complain'd that some from Arrianisme were reconciled, and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters, from Presbyters to be Bishops, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a greater degree, or Order: And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomi∣um of S. Athanasius, speaking of his Canonicall Or∣dination, and election to a Bishoprick, saies that he was chosen being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most worthy, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, coming through all the infertor Orders. The same commendation S. Cy∣prian gives of Cornelius.* 1.358 Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Domi∣num 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 ordinatio∣ne miserunt. Here is evident, not only a promotion, but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome; so that now the chaire is full (saith S. Cy∣prian) & quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est, nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinatio∣nem &c. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishoprick.

2. THe ordination of a Bishop to his chaire was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter,* 1.359 and not only so, but in another manner then he had when he was made Priest. This is evident in the first Ec∣clesiasticall Canon that was made after Scripture. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Priest and Deacon must be ordain'd of one Bishop, but a Bishop must be ordain'd by two or three at least. And that we may see it yet more to be Apo∣stolicall, S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports, Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Iacobus à Pe∣tro, Iacobo, & Iohanne Apostolis est ordinatus. Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. Iames to be a Bishop, and the selfe same thing is in words affir∣med by Anicetus; ut in ore duorum, veltrium stet omnis veritas;* 1.360 And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome, there hapned to be many of his fellow Bishops there, & factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant. These Collegae could not be meer Priests, for then the ordination of Novatus had

been more Canonicall, then that of Cornelius, and all Christendome had been deceived, for not Nova∣tus who was ordain'd by three Bishops, but Corne∣lius had been the Schismatick, as being ordain'd by Priests, against the Canon. But here I observe it for the word [plurimis,] there were many of them or∣dination.

* 1.361 In pursuance of this Apostolicall ordinance, Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be or∣dayn'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by all the Bishops in the Province, unlesse it be in case of necessity, and then it must be done by three being gathered toge∣ther, and the rest consenting; so the ordination to be performed.* 1.362 The same is ratified in the Councell of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Bishop is not to be ordain'd without a Synod of Bishops, and the pre∣sence of the Metropolitan of the province. But if this cannot be done conviniently, yet however it is required 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the ordinations must be performed by many. The same was decreed in the Councell of Laodicea, can: 12. in the 13. Canon of the African Code, in the 22^th Canon of the first Councell of Arles,* 1.363 and the fifth Canon of the second Councell of Arles, and was ever the practise of the Church; and so we may see it descend through the bowells of the fourth Coun∣cell of Carthage to the inferiour ages.* 1.364 Episcopus qunm ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant, & ten••ant E∣vangeliorum codicem super caput, & cervicem ejus, & uno super eum fundente benediction••m, reliqui 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tan∣gant.

The thing was Catholike, and Canonicall. It was prima, & immutabilis constitutio, so the first Canon of the Councel of* 1.365 Epaunū cals it; And therefore af∣ter the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch, a schisme was made about his successor,* 1.366 & Evagrius his ordi∣nation condemn'd; because, praeter Ecclesiastica•• re∣gulam fuerit ordinatus, it was against the rule of Holy Church. Why so? Solus enim Paulinus eum institu∣erat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas. Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit, sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes, & prae∣ter tres Pontifices ordinationem pènitùs fieri, interdi∣cunt. Which because it was not observ'd in the or∣dination of Evagrius who was not ordayn'd by three Bishops, the ordination was cassated in the Councell of Rhegium. And we read that when No∣vatus would faine be made a Bishop in the schisme against Cornelius,* 1.367 he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis (saith Eusebius,) he obtain'd three Bishops,* 1.368 for per∣formance of the action.

Now besides these Apostolicall, and Catholike Canons, and precedents, this thing according to the constant, and Vnited interpretation of the Greeke Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishoprick of Ephesus. [Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.] The Latine Fathers expound it ab∣stractly, viz. to signifie the office of Priest-hood, that is, neglect not the grace of Priest-hood that is

in thee by the imposition of hands, and this Erasmus helpes by making [Presbyterij] to pertaine to [Gratiam] by a new inter-punction of the words; but however, Presbyterij with the Latine Fathers signifies Presbyteratûs, not Presbyterorum, and this Presbyteratus is in their sense used for Episcopatus too. But the Greeke Fathers understand it collect∣ively, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not sim∣ply such, but Bishops too, all agree in that, that E∣piscopacy is either meant in office, or in person. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Oecumenius; and S. Chry∣sostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Theophilact, So Theodoret. The probation of this lies upon right reason, an̄d Catholicke tradi∣tion; For,

3. THE Bishops* 1.369 ordination was peculia•• in this respect above the Presbyters, for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop. On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Councell of Carthage; but never on a Bishop. And that was the reason of the former exposition. By the Presby∣tery S. Paul meanes Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop, and therefore Presbyterium is not a Col∣ledge of meere Presbyters, for such could never or∣daine S. Timothy to be a Bishop. The same reason is given by the Latine Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signifie Episcopacy. For (saith S. Ambrose) S. Paul had ordain'd Timothy to be a Bi∣shop, Vnde & quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet

ostendit. Ne{que} enim fas erat, aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret Majorem. So he; and subjoynes this reason, Nemo n. tribuit quodnon accepit. The same is affirmed by S. Chrysostome, and generally by the authors of the former expositions, that is, the Fa∣thers both of the East, and West. For it was so Ge∣nerall and Catholike a truth, that Priests could not, might not lay hands on a Bishop, that there was ne∣ver any example of it in Christendome till almost 600 yeares after Christ, and that but once,* 1.370 and that irregular, and that without imitation in his Succes∣sors, 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, Iohan∣nes de Perusio, & Bonus de Ferentino, & Andraeas Presbyter de Ostiâ, & ordinaverunt eum Pontificem. Tunc enim non ••rant in Clero qui eum possent promo∣vere. Saith Damasus.* 1.371 It was in case of necessity, because there were not three Bishops, therefore he procur'd two, and a Priest of Ostia to supply the place of the third, that three, according to the dire∣ction Apostolicall, and Canons of Nice, Antioch, and Carthage, make Episcopall ordination. * The Church of Rome is concern'd in the businesse to make faire this ordination, and to reconcile it to the Councell of Rhegium, and the others before menti∣ned, who if ask't would declare it to be invalid. * But certainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop, so also they comman∣ded 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 Bi∣shops the first Canon of the Apostles, approves the ordination if done by two, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the Nicene Canon is as much exact, in requirng the capacity of the person, as the Number of the Or∣dainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I beleive that the imposition of hands by Andreas, was no more in that case then if a lay man had done it; it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and though the ordination was absolutely Un canonicall, yet it being in the exi∣gence of Necessity, and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolicall Canon, it was valid in naturâ rei, though not in formâ Canonis, and the addition of the Priest was but to cheate the Canon, and cozen himselfe into an impertinent beleife of a Canonicall ordination.* 1.372 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Councell of Sardis. Bishops must ordaine Bishops; It was never heard that Priests did, or de jure might.

These premises doe most certainely inferre a re∣all difference, between Episcopacy, and the Pres∣bytera••e. But whether or no they inferre a diffe∣rence of order, or onely of degree; or whether de∣gree, and order be all one, or no, is of great conside∣ration in the present, and in relation to many other Questions.

1. Then it is evident, that in all Antiquity, Or∣do, and Gradus were us'd promiscuously. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was the Greeke word, and for it the Latins us'd [Ordo] as is evident in the instances above menti∣on'd, to which,* 1.373 adde, that Anacletus sayes, that

Christ did instituere duos Ordines, Episcop••rum, & Sacerdotum.* 1.374 And S. Leo affirmes; Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem, secundum Presbyteralem, tertium Leviticum; And these among the Greekes are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, three degrees. So the order of Deacon∣ship in S. Paul is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good degree; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c: is a censu••e us'd alike in the cen∣sures of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. They are all of the same Name, and the same consideration, for order, distance, and degree, amongst the Fathers; Gra∣dus, and ordo are equally affirm'd of them all; and the word gradus is us'd sometimes for that which is cal∣led Ordo most frequently.* 1.375 So Felix writing to S. Austin, Non tantùm ego possum contrà tuam vìrtu∣tem, quià mira virtus est GRADUS EPISCOPALIS; and S. Cyprian of Cornelius, ad Sacerdotij sublime sastigium cunctis religionis GRADIBUS ascendit. Degree, and Order, are us'd in common, for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in per∣sons, which corresponds to a degree in qualities, and neither of the words are wrong'd by a mutuall substitution.

2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Epis∣copale, was at first call'd ordinatio Episcopi. Stirre vp the Grace that is in the, juxta ORDINATIONEM tuam in Episcopatum, saith Sedulius; And S. Hie∣rome; Prophetiae grat••am habebat cum ORDINATI∣ONE Episcopatûs.* 1.376 * Ne{que} 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 Pe∣tro

ORDINATUM edit, saith Tertullian; and S. Hie∣rome affirmes that S.* 1.377 Iames was ORDAIND Bishop of Ierusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. [Ordinatus] was the word at first, and after∣wards [CONSECRATUS] came in conjunction with it, When Moses the Monke was to be ordain'd, to wit, a Bishop, for that's the title of the story in Theodoret, and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him,* 1.378 absit (saies he) vt manus tua me CONSECRET.

3. In all orders, there is the impresse of a distinct Character; that is, the person is qualified with a new capacity to doe certaine offices, which before his ordination he had no power to doe. A Deacon hath an order or power

—Quo pocula vitae

Misceat, & latices, cum Sanguine porrigat agni, as Arator himselfe a Deacon expresses it. A Pres∣byter hath an higher order, or degree in the office or ministery of the Church, whereby he is enabled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Councell of Ancyra does intimate. But a Bi∣shop hath a higher yet;* 1.379 for besides all the offices communicated to Priests, and Deacons; he can give orders, which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order. For, Ordo, is defin'd by the Schooles to be, traditio potestatis spiritualis, & collatio gratiae, ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica; a giving a spiritu∣all power, and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiasticall Ministrations. Since then Episco∣pacy hath a new ordination, and a distinct power (as I

shall shew in the descent) it must needs be a distinct order, both according to the Name given it by anti∣quity, and according to the nature of the thing in the de••••nitions of the Schoole.

There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome, obtruded indeed upon no grounds; for they would define order to be a speciall power in relation to the Holy Sacrament, which they call corpus Christi naturale; and Episco∣pacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad cor∣pus Christi Mysticum, or the regiment of the Church, and ordayning labourers for the harvest, and therefore not to be a distinct order.

But this to them that consider things sadly, is true or false according as any man list. For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to consecration of the Eu∣charist, who can help it? Then indeed, in that sense, Episcopacy is not a distinct order, that is, a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist, more then a Presbyter hath. But then why these men should only call this power [an or∣der] no man can give a reason. For, 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order, and I think, before Hugo de S. Victore, and the Master of the Sentences, no man ever deni'd it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would faine know how the office of a Sub-deacon, and of an Ostiary, and of an Acolouthite, and of a Reader, come to be distinct Orders; for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo, as

they have de integr••. And if I mistake not; that the Bishop hath a new power to ordaine Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist, is more a new power in order to consecration, then all those inferiour officers put together have in all, and yet they call them Orders, and therefore why not Episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unlesse because they will not.

*** But however in the meane time, the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an Innovation of the produ∣ction of some in the Church of Rome, without all reason, and against all antiquity. This onely by the way.

The Enemies of Episcopacy call in aide from all places for support of their ruinous cause, and there∣fore take their maine hopes from the Church of Rom•• by advantage of the former discourse. For since (say they) that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest worke,* 1.380 of the most seeret mystery, greatest power, and highest dignity that is compe∣tent to man, and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop, is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine in∣stitution be so much Superiour to a Presbyter, who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power? And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders, and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter, and not ra∣ther the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Coun∣ter poise of a Bishop? Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome, would inferre an identity of or∣der,

though a disparity of degree, but the Men of the other world would inferre a parity both of order and degree too. The first are already answered in the premises. The second must now be serv'd.

1. Then, whether power be greater, of Ordai∣ning Priests, or Consecrating the Sacrament is an im∣pertinent Question; possibly, it may be of some danger; because in comparing Gods ordinances, there must certainely be a depression of one, and whether that lights upon the right side or no, yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God, to doe that, which in Gods estimate, may tant' amount to a direct Vn∣dervaluing; but however it is vnprofitable, of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith, or manners, and besides, cannot fixe it selfe upon any basis, there being no way of proving either to be more excellent then the other.

2. The Sacraments, and mysteries of Christi∣anity if compared among themselves, are greater, and lesser in severall respects. For since they are all in order to severall ends, that is, productive of seve∣rall effects, and they all are excellent, every rite, and sacrament in respect of its own effect, is more excellent then the other not ordain'd to that effect. For example. Matrimony is ordain'd for a means to preserve chastity, and to represent the mysticall uni∣on of Christ and his Church, and therefore in these respects is greater then baptisme, which does nei∣ther. But* 1.381 baptisme is for remission of sinnes and in that is more excellent then Matrimony; the

same may be said for ordination, and consecration, the one being in order to Christs naturall body (as the Schooles speak) the other in order to his my∣sticall body, and so have their severall excellencies respectively; but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other, I said there was no basis to fixe that upon, and I believe all men will find it so that please to try. But in a relative, or respective excel∣lency, they goe both before, and after one another. Thus Wooll, and a Iewell, are better then each o∣ther; for wooll is better for warmth, and a jewell for ornament. A frogge hath more sense in it, then the Sunne; and yet the Sunne shines brighter.

3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater then ordaining Priests, yet that cannot hin∣der, but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order, because the power of or∣daining, hath in it the power of consecrating and something more; it is all that which makes the Priest, and it is something more besides, which makes the Bishop. Indeed if the Bishop had it not, and the Priest had it, then supposing consecration to be greater then ordination, the Priest would not only equall, but excell the Bishop, but because the Bishop hath that, and ordination besides, therefore he is higher both in Order, and Dignity.

4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clericall power in the world, and that the Bishop, and the Priest, were equall in the great••st power, yet a lesser power then it, superadded to the Bi∣shop's, may make a distinct order, and superiority.

Thus it was said of the sonne of Man. Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis, he was made a little low∣er then the Angels. It was but a little lower, and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures, for he took not upon him the NATURE of Angells, but the seed of Abraham. So it is in proportion between Bishop, and Priest; for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church, viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist, yet differing in a lesse is paulò minor Angelis, a little lower then the Bishop, the Angell of the Church, yet this little lower, makes a di∣stinct order, and enough for a subordination. * An Angell, and a man communicate in those great ex∣cellencies of spirituall essence, they both discourse, they have both election, and freedome of choice, they have will, and understanding, and memory, impresses of the Divine image, and loco-motion, and immortality. And these excellencies are (being precisely considered) of more reall and eternall worth, then the Angelicall manner of moving so in an instant, and those other formes and modalities of their knowledge and volition, and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no lesse then specificall. If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus, what we call difference in nature there, will be a difference in order here, and of the same consideration.

5. Lastly it is considerable, that these men that make this objection, doe not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turne. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the

reall presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the Anti-episcopall men doe so, in all sen∣ses; and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more then in ordination? Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all? This al∣so would be considered from their principles. But I proceed.

One thing only more is objected against the maine Question. If Episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest, as (abstracting from the lawes of the Church) a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon, for if it be the impresse of a distinct chara∣cter, it may be, imprinted per saltum, and indepen∣dantly, as it is in the order of a Presbyter.

To this I answere, It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independant; as it is in all those offices of humane constitution, which are called the inferior orders; For the office of an Aco∣louthite, 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 Dea∣con, 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 suppo∣ses a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop, for how else can he ordaine a Presbyter

with a power, that himselfe hath not? can he give, what himselfe hath not received?

* 1.382 I end this point with the saying of Epiphani. us, Vox est Aërii haretici unus est ordo Bpisoeperum, & Presbyterorum, una dignitas. To say that Bi∣shops are not a distinct order from Presbyters, was a heresy first broach'd by Aërius, and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) counte∣nanc'd by many of the Church of Rome.

FOR to cleare the distinction of order,* 1.383 it is evi∣dent in Antiquity, that Bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of Orders, which Presbyters have not. * What was done in this af∣faire in the times of the Apostles I have already ex∣plicated: but now the inquiry is, what the Church did in pursuance of the practise,* 1.384 and tradition A∣stolicall. The first, and second Canons of the Apo∣stles command that two, or three Bishops should ordaine a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordaine a Priest, and a Deacon, A Presbyter is not authorized to ordaine,* 1.385 a Bishop is. * S. Dionysius affirmes, Sa∣cerdotem non posse initiari, nisi per invocationes E∣piscopales, and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bi∣shop. No more did the Church ever; Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans, did ambire Episcopatum, he was faine to goe to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius wit∣nesses in his Epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius.* 1.386 To this we may adde as so many witnesses, all those or∣dinations

made by the Bishops of Rome, mentioned in the Pontificall book of Damasus, Platina, and o∣thers. Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, Presbyteros decem, Diaconos duos, &c. creat (S. Clemens) Anacletus Presbyteros quin{que}, Diaco∣nos tres, Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero crea∣vit, and so in descent, for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together.

But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone, by Law and Constituti∣on; for particular examples are infinite.

In the Councell of Ancyra it is determin'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.387 That Rurall Bishops shall not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons in anothers dio∣cesse without letters of license from the Bishop. Nei∣ther shall the Priests of the City attempt it. * First not Rurall Bishops, that is, Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis, Vicars to the Bishop of the diocesse, they must not ordaine Priests and Deacons. For it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is anothers dio∣cesse, and to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture. But then they may with li∣cense? Yes; for they had Episcopall Ordination at first, but not Episcopall Iurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch clears this part. The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus. Qui in villis, & vi∣cis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manûs imposi∣tionem

ab Episcopis susceperunt, [& ut Episcopi∣sunt consecrati] tamen aportet eos modum proprtum retinere, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the next clause [& ut Episcopi consecrati sunt] al∣though it be in very ancient Latine copies, years not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum for expo∣sition of the Greek, but is most certainly implyed in it; for else, what description could this be of Chore∣piscopi, above Presbyter•• rurales, to say that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for so had country Priests, they had received imposition of the Bishops hands. Either then the Ch••repiscopi had received or∣dination from three Bishops, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be ta∣ken collectively, not distibutively, to wit, that each Country Bishop had received ordination from Bi∣shops, many Bishops in conjunction, and so they were very Bishops, or else they had no more then Village Priests, and then this caution had been im∣pertine••••.

* But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a Parenthesis; with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the midst of the Canon, and there was some particular reason for the involving them, not that they ever did actually ordaine any, but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordaine (to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordaine without li∣cense, it being in alienâ Parochiâ, yet they had ca∣pacity by their order to doe it) if these should doe it, the Citty Presbyters who were often dispatch'd in∣to the Villages upon the same imployment, by a

temporary mission, that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary, and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther then it did, or that they might goe beyond it, as well as the Ch••r••pisc••pi, and therefore their way was ob∣structed by this clause of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* Adde to this; The Presbyters of the City were of great honour, and peculiar priviledge, as ap∣peares in the thirteenth Canon of the Councell of Neo. Caesare••, and therefore might easily exceed, if the Canon had not beene their bridle.

The summe of the Canon is this. With the Bi∣shops licence the Chorepiscopi might ordaine, for themselves had Episcopall ordination, but without licence they might not, for they had but delegate, and subordinate jurisdiction, And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Ne••-Caesarea are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like the 70 Disciples, that is, infe∣rior to Bishops, and the 70 were to the twelve Apo∣stles, viz. in hoc perticulari, not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdicti∣on: but the Citty Presbyters might not ordaine, neither with, nor without licence; for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis, and the se∣quence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to Chorepiscopi, not to Presbyteri Civitat is, unlesse we should straine this Canon into a sense contrary to the practise of the Catholike Church. Res euim ordinis non possunt de∣legari, is a most certain rule in Divinity, and admit∣ted 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 Apo∣stolicall is, that they never could give orders; there∣fore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no ex∣ception, but is cleare for the illegality of a Presby∣t••r giving holy orders, either to a Presbyter, or a Deacon, and is concluding for the necessity of con∣currence both of Episcopall 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 Catholike Custome, the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction, and the Priests of the Cit∣ty for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus, the second cannot, but by a new ordination, that is, by making the Priest a Bishop. For if a Priest of the Citty have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by shewing that the Chorepis∣copus then had Episcopall ordination, and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop, the City Priests might not doe it, unlesse more be added to them, for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be or∣der,

* But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had E∣piscopall Ordination, yet it was quickly taken from

them for their incroa••h•••••• upon the Bishops Dio∣cesse, and as they were but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 E∣piscoporum in villis, so their ordination was but to a meere Presbyterate. And this we find, as soone as ever we heare that they had had Episcopall Ordi∣nation. For those who in the beginning of the 10^th Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops, in the end of the same Cahon, we find it decreed de novo: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Chorepiscopus or Country Bi∣shop must be ordayn'd by the Bishop of the Citie, in whose jurisdiction he is; which was clearly ordina∣tion to the order of a Presbyter, and no more. And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries, with the Bishop's License too, but they never ordayn'd any to be De••∣cons, or Priests; for these were Orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing, and therefore were gratiae Spiri∣tûs Sancti, and issues of order; but the inferiour Mi∣nisteries, as of a Reader, an Ostiary &c. were humane constitutions, and requir'd not the capacity of Epis∣copall Order to collate them; for they were not Gra∣ces of the Holy Ghost; as all Orders properly so call∣ed are, but might by humane dispensation be be∣stow'd, as well as by humane Ordinance, they had their first constitution. * * The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Councell of His∣palis: save only, that such men also were called Cho∣repiscopi who had beene Bishops of Citied but had fallen from their honour by communicating in

Gentile Sacrifices, and by being traditors, but in case they repented and were reconciled, they had not indeed restītution 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 no∣thing pertinent, for they also had the ordination, and order of Bishops. The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Councell, as is to be seene in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexan∣dria. * But however all this while,* 1.388 the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand, that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge.

* I find the like care taken in the Councell of Sardis,* 1.389 for when Musaeus, and Eutychianus had or∣dain'd some Clerkes, themselves not being Bishops, Gaudentius (one of the moderate men, 'tis likely) for quietnesse sake, and to comply with the times, would faine have had those Clerks received into Clericall communion; but the Councell would by no meanes admitt that any should be received into the Clergy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as B••l••amon expresses upon that Canon,) but such as were ordain'd by them who were Bishops verily, and indecd. But with those who were ordain'd by Musaeus and E••tychianus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we will communicate as with Laymen: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

for they were no Bishops that impos'd hands ••n them; and therefore the Clerks were not ordain'd truly, but were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dissemblers of or∣dination. Quae autem de Musaeo & Entychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fveront, &c. Saith Balsamon, intimating, that it is a rul'd case and of publike interest.

* The same was the issue of those two famous cases, the one of Ischiras ordain'd of Colluthus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that dream'd onely he was a Bishop. Ischiras being ordain'd by him could be no Priest, nor any else of his ordaining, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Ischyr as himselfe was reduc'd into laycommunion, being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate,* 1.390 say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis; And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischir as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith S. Athanasius, and this so knowne a businesse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, No man made scruple of the Nullity. ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus, who was ano∣ther Bishop in the aire too; all his ordinations were pronounced null, by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople.* 1.391 A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination, the ordination was pro∣nounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill.* 1.392 These cases are so known, I need not insist on them. This onely,

In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons,

Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion, either being suspended, or deposed; that is, from their place of honour, and execution of their function, with, or without hope of restitution respectively; but then still they had their order, and the Sacraments con∣ferr'd by them were valid, though they indeed were prohibited to Minister; but in the cases of the pre∣sent instance, the ordinations were pronounc'd as null, to have bestowed nothing, and to be meerely imaginary.

* But so also it was in case that Bishops ordain'd without a title, or in the diocesse of another Bishop, as in the Councell of† 1.393 Chalcedon, and of* 1.394 Anti. ••ch 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter, it was by positive consti∣tution pronounced void, and no more, and therefore may be rescinded by the Counter-mand of an e∣quall power; A Councell at most may doe it, and therefore without a Councell, a probable necessity will let us loose. But to this the answer is evident.

1. The expressions in the severall cases are se∣verall, & of diverse issue, for in case of those nullities which are meerely Canonicall, they are expressed as then first made, but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop, they are onely declared voy'd ipso facto. And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitul••r ordinations, the Canon saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs im∣positionem, to be esteem'd as null, that is, not to have Canonicall approbation, but is not declared null,

in Naturâ rei, as it is in the foregoing instances.

2. In the cases of Antioch, and 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 Ca∣non was made; and though Synodall declarations pronoun'd such ordinations invalid, yet none de∣creed so for the future, which is a cleare evidence, that this nullity, viz: in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter, is not made by Canon, but by Canon *de∣clar'd to be invalid in the nature of the thing.

3. If to this be added, that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by the Nature, and insti∣tution of the Order of Bishops; ordination was ap∣propriate to them, then it will also from hence be evident, that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependant upon positive constitution, but on the exigence of the institution. ** Now that the power of ordination was onely in the Bi∣shop, even they, who to advance the Presbyters, were willing enough to speake lesse for Episcopacy, give testimony; making this the proper distinctive cog∣nisance of a Bishop from a Presbyter, that the Bishop hath power of ordination, the Presbyter hath not. So S. Ierome,* 1.395 Quid facit Episcopus (except â ordina∣tione) quod Presbyter non faciat. All things (saith he) [to wit all things of precise order] are com∣mon to Bishops with Priests, except ordination, for that is proper to the Bishop.* 1.396 And S. Chrysostome, So∣lâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt [Episcopi]

at{que} 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 call'd an heretick for breach of Canon, but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop: Aërius was by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and S. Austin condemn'd, and branded for heresie, and by the Catholike Church saith Epi∣phanius. This power therefore came from a higher spring, then positive and Canonicall Sanction. But now proceed.

The Councell held in Trullo,* 1.397 complaining that the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance, saith that it forc'd some Bi∣shops from their residence, & made that they could not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the guise of the Church, give Orders and doe such things as DID BELONG TO THE BISHOP; and in the se∣quel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases, ut & diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant, to make Canonicall ordinations of Clergy-men. Giving of Orders is proper, it belongs to a Bishop. So the Councell. And therefore Theodoret ex∣pounding that place of S. Paul [by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery] interprets it of Bishops; for this reason, because Presbyters did not impose hands. * There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Councell that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose,* 1.398 Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur,

those things that are not done, but by Bishops, they were decreed still to be done by Bishops, though he that was to doe them regularly, did fall into any in∣firmity whatsoever, yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Pres∣byteros agere permittat, sed evocet Episcopum. Here are clearely by this Canon some things suppos'd to be proper to the Bishops, to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted. The parti∣culars, what they are, are not specified in the Canon, but are nam'd before, viz: Orders, and Confirmati∣on, for almost the whole Councell was concerning them, and nothing else is properly the agendum E∣piscopi, and the Canon else is not to be Understood. * To the same issue is that circum-locutory de∣scription, or name of a Bishop, us'd by S. Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The man that is to ordaine Clerks.

* 1.399 And all this is but the doctrine of the Catho∣like Church which S. Epiphanius oppos'd to the doctrine of Aërius, denying Episcopacy to be a dist∣inct order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (speaking of Episcopacy) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speaking of Presbytery. The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God, but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptisme, but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination.* 1.400 It is a ve∣ry remarkeable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter, the Bishop did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all the whole Clergy was against it, yet the Bishop did ordaine him, and then certainely searce any conjunction of

the other Clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a rul'd case, and attested by the Uniforme practise of the Church, which was set downe in the third Coun∣cell of Carthage,* 1.401 Episcopus vnus 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 vnum habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse vnus Presbyter auferri? How if the Bishop have but one Priest, must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widdow-Church? Yea, that he must. But how then shall he keepe ordina∣tions when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him? That indeed would have beene the objection now, but it was none then. For Aurelius told them plain∣ly, there was no inconvenience in it, for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter, no great matter, he can himselfe ordaine many (and then I am sure, there is sole ordination) but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church, he is not so easily found.

** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church, ordinations were made by the Bishop, and the ordainer spoken of as a single person.* 1.402 So it is in the Nicene Councell, the Councell ofa 1.403 Antioch, the Councell ofb 1.404 Chalcedon, and S. Ierome who wri∣ting to Pammachius against the errors of Iohn of Ie∣rusalem;

If thou speake (saith he) of Paulinianus, he comes now and then to visit us, not as any of your Clergy, but ejus à quo ordinatus est, that Bi∣shop's who ordain'd him.

* So that the issue of this argument is this. The Canons of the Apostles, and the rules of the Ancient Councells appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops, of Presbyters to one Bishop, (for I never find a Presbyter ordain'd by two Bishops together, but onely Origen by the Bishops of Ierusalem, and Caesarea) Presbyters are never mention'd in conjun∣ction with Bishops at their ordinations, and if alone they did it, their ordination was pronounced inva∣lid and void ab initio.

* To these particulars adde this, that Bishops a∣lone were punished if ordinations were Vncanoni∣call, which were most vnreasonable if Presbyters did joine in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unlesse they did it alone, we never read that they were punishable; indeed Bishops were pro toto, & integro, as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, and Eleu∣sius. Thus also it was decreed in the second, and sixt Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon, and in the Imperiall constitutions.* 1.405 Since therefore we neither find Presbyters join'd with Bishops in commission, or practise, or penalty all this while. I may inferre from the premises the same thing which the Coun∣cell of Hispal expresses in direct, and full sentence, Episcopus Sacerdotibus,* 1.406 ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest. The Bishop a∣lone

may give the Priestly honour, he alone is not suffer'd to take it away. * This Councell was held in the yeare 657,* 1.407 and I set it downe here for this pur∣pose to show that the decree of the fourth Councell of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligato∣ry in the West; but for almost 300 yeares after, ordinations were made by Bishops alone. But till this Councell no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this Councell sole ordination did not ex∣pire in the West for above 200 yeares together; but for ought I know, ever since then, it hath ob∣tain'd, that although Presbyters joyne not in the con∣secration of a Bishop, yet of a Presbyter they doe; but this is onely by a positive subintroduced consti∣tution first made in a Provinciall of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformi∣ty of practise.

* I know not what can be said against it. I onely find a peice of an objection out of S. Cyprian, who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocesse, that if any man, he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy.** 1.408 Hunc igitur (Fratres Dile∣ctissimi) à me, & à Collegis qui praesentes aderant or∣dinatum sciatis. Here either by his Colleagues he meanes Bishops, or Presbyters. If Bishops, then ma∣ny Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order, which because it was (as I ob∣serv'd before) against the practise of Christendome, will not easily be admitted to be the sense of S. Cypri∣an. But if he means Presbyters by [Collegae] then sole

ordination is invalidated by this example, for Pres∣byters join'd with him in the ordination of Aure∣lius.

I answer, that it matters not whether by his Col∣leagues he means one, or the other, for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordain'd, was ordain'd but to be a Reader, and that was no Order of Divine institution, no gift of the Holy Ghost, and therefore might be dispensed by one, or more; by Bishops, or Presbyters, and no way enters into the considerati∣on of this question concerning the power of col∣lating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost, and of divine ordinance; and therefore, this, although I have seen it once pretended, yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practise of Primi∣tive antiquity.

But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meere Presbyters without a Bishop? What think we of the reformed Churches?

1. For my part I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked with so much vi∣olence, and prejudice; and we are so bound by pub∣like interest to approve all that they doe, that wee have disabled our selves to justify our owne. For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Romane Church, we found these men zea∣lous in it, we thank'd God for it (as we had cause) and we were willing to make them recompence, by endeavouring to justify their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon our selves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own Episcopa∣cy

is thought not necessary, because wee did not condemne the ordinations of their Presbytery.

2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, then what we think of the reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Councells, and Fathers doe well in condemning the ordinations made by meere Presbyters? If they did well, what was a vertue in them, is no sinne in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall wee judge of the right of ordinations? since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles, and Bishops, and the Presbytery that impos'd hands on Timothy, is by all antiquity ex∣pounded either of the office, or of a Colledge of Presbyters; and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordi∣nation made by his owne hands, as appeares by comparing the two epistles to S. Timothy together; and may be so meant by the principles of all sides, for if the names be confounded, then Presbyter may signify a Bishop, and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops, they can never prove from Scrip∣ture, where all men grant that the Names are con∣founded.

* So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations? From Scripture? That gives it alwayes to Apostles, and Bishops (as I have proved) and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be showne from thence. From when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then? From Antiquity? That was so farre from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters a∣lone, that Presbyters in the primitive Church did

never joyne with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter, and Deacon, till the 4^th Councell of Car∣thage; much lesse doe it alone, rightly, and with effect. So that, as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining, so in Antiquity there is much against it; And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture, and Antiquity, or not so faire interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries. But for my part I had rather speake a truth in sincerity, then erre with a glorious correspondence.

But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodoxe Bishops? shall we ei∣ther sinne against our consciences by suscribing to hereticall, and false resolutions in materiâ fidei, or else loose the being of a Church, for want of Episco∣pall ordinations? * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with the good people of the trans∣marine Churches; but I have here two things to consider.

1. I am very willing to beleive that they would not have done any thing either of error, or suspiti∣on, but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis,* 1.409 a man of honour, and Great learning does attest, that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinalls in Germany, Eng∣land, France, and Italy that joyn'd in the reforma∣tion, whom they might, but did not imploy in their ordinations; And what necessity then can be pre∣tended in this case, I would faine learne that I might make their defence. But, which is of more, and

deeper consideration; for this might have been done by inconsideration, and irresolution, as often hap∣pens in the beginning of great changes, but, it is their constant and resolved practise at least in France, that if any returnes to them they will reordayne him by their Presbytery,* 1.410 though he had before Episcopall Ordination, as both their friends and their enemies beare witnesse.

2. I consider that necessity may excuse a perso∣nall delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forc'd for his owne particular to committ a sinne, for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceases to be a sinne; but indeed if God meanes to build a Church in any place, he will doe it by meanes proportion∣able to that end; that is, by putting them into a possi∣bility of doing, and acquiring those things which himselfe hath required of necessity to the constituti∣on of a Church. * So that, supposing that Ordina∣tion by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests, and Deacons (as I have proved it is) and therefore for the founding, or perpetuating of a Church, either God hath given to all Churches op∣portunity and possibility of such Ordinations, and then, necessity of the contrary, is but pretence and mockery, or if he hath not given such possibility, then there is no Church there to be either built, or continued, but the Candlestick is presently remo∣ved.

There are diverse stories in Ruffinus to this pur∣pose.* 1.411 When Aedesius and Frumentius were surpri∣zed

by the Barbarous Indians, they preached Chri∣stianity, and baptized many, but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations, and so not fixe a Church. What then was to be done in the case? Frumentius Alexandriam pergit. . . . & rem omnem, ut gesta est, narrat EPISCOPO, ac monet, ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat. Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop. Athanasius being then Patriarch ordayn'd Frumentius their Bishop, & tradito ei Sacerdotio, re∣dire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet. . . . ex quo (saith Ruffinus) in Indiae partibus, & populi Christianorum & Ecclesiae factaae sunt, & Sacer doti∣um caepit.

The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman;* 1.412 posteà verò quàm Ecclesia magnificè constructa est, & populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant, captivae monitis ad Imperato∣rem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur: Res gesta exponitur: SACERDOTES mittere oratur qui caeptum ergà se Dei munus implerent. The worke of Christianity could not be completed, nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops. * Thus the case is evident, that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one; and where God meanes to found a Church there he will supply them with those meanes, and Ministeries which himselfe hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministrati∣on

amongst us, prove hereticall, still Gods Church is Catholike, and though with trouble, yet Ortho∣doxe Bishops may be acquir'd. For just so it hap∣pen'd when Mauvia Queene of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermit made the Bishop of her Nation, and offer'd peace to the Catholikes upō that condition; Lucius an Arrian troubled the af∣fayre by his interposing and offering to ordayne Moses; The Hermit discover'd his vilenesse,* 1.413 & ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere. Moses refus'd to be ordayn'd by him that was an Arrian. So did the reform'd Churches refuse or∣dinations 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) sacer∣dotium sumere. Those good people might have had orders from the Bishops of England, or the Luthe∣ran Churches, if at least they thought our Churches Catholike, and Christian.

If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling justifie it? Yea, most certainely, could we but see an ordinary proofe for an extraordinary calling, viz: an evident prophecy, demonstration of Miracles, certainety of reason, clarity of sense, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission.

But shall we then condemne those few of the Re∣formed Churches whose ordinations alwaies have beene without Bishops? No indeed. That must not be. They stand, or fall to their owne Master. And

though I cannot justifie their ordinations, yet what degree their Necessity is of, what their desire of E∣piscopall ordinations may doe for their personall ex∣cuse, and how farre a good life, and a Catholike be∣leife may leade a man in the way to heaven, (al∣though the formes of externall communion be not observ'd) I cannot determine. * For ought I know, their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus [I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Sathans seate is, and thou heldest fast my FAITH, and hast not denied my Name; Nihi∣lominus habeo adversus te pauca, some few things I have against thee;] and yet of them, the want of Canonicall ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sinne indeed is the lesse, but their mi∣sery the Greater. * I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it will be thought so, I cannot tell; and yet why it may not I cannot guesse, unlesse they only be impeccable, which I suppose will not so ea∣sily be thought of them, who themselves thinke, that all the Church possibly may faile. But this I would not have declar'd so freely, had not the necessity of our owne Churches requir'd it, and that the first pretence of the legality, and validity of their ordi∣nations beene boyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conforme to us, and to the practise of the Catholike Church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeale to exact our confor∣mity to them; But I hope it will so happen to us,

that it will be verifyed here, what was once said of the Catholikes under the fury of Iustina, sed tanta fuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, vt animas priùs amittere, quàm Episcopum mallent; If it were put to our choice, rather to dye (to wit the death of Martyrs, not rebells) then loose the sacred order, and offices of Episcopacy, without which no Priest, no ordination, no consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity.

The summe is this. If the Canons, and Sancti∣ons Apostolicall, if the decrees of eight famous Councells in Christendome, of Ancyra, of Anti∣och, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican Councell, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr Bishops of Rome making ordinations, if the testimo∣ny of the whole Pontificall book, if the dogmaticall resolution of so many Fathers, S. Denis, S. Corneli∣us, S. Athanasius, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Epi∣phanius, S. Austin, and diverse others, all appro∣priating ordinations to the Bishops hand: if the con∣stant voice of Christendome, declaring ordinations made by Presbyters, to be null, and voide in the na∣ture of the thing: and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop, approoved by any Councell, decretall, or single suffrage of any famous man in Christen∣dome: if that ordinations of Bishops were alwaies made, and they ever done by Bishops, and no pre∣tence of Priests joyning with them in their conse∣crations, and after all this it was declared heresy to

communicate the power of giving orders to Presby∣ters either alone, or in conjunction with Bishops, as it was in the case of Aërius: if all this, that is, if what∣soever can be imagined, be sufficient to make faith in this particular; then it is evident that the power, and order of Bishops is greater then the power, and order of Presbyters, to wit, in this Great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voyce, and uni∣ted vote of Christendome.

* BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy.* 1.414 The next is of Confirmation of bapti∣zed people. And here the rule was this, which was thus expressed by Damascen:* 1.415 Apostolorum, & Suc∣cessorum eorum est per manûs impositionem donum Spiritus sancti tradere. It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by im∣position of hands. But see this in particular in∣stance.

The Councell of Eliberis giving permission to faithfull people of the Laity to baptize Catechu∣mens in cases of necessity, and exigence of journey; ita tamen ut si supervixerit [baptizatus] ad Episco∣pum cum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem profi∣cere possit. Let him be carried to the Bishop to be im∣prov'd by imposition of the BISHOPS hands. This was Law.

It was also custome saith S. Cyprian,* 1.416 Quod nunc quo{que} apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizan∣tur, per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram

orationem, & manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico consummentur. And this custome was Catholick too, and the Law was of Vniversall concernement. OMNES Fideles per manuum impositionem EPISCOPORUM Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani accipere debent. So S. Vrbane in his de∣cretall Epistle;* 1.417 And, Omnibus festinandum est sine morâ renasci, & demùm CONSIGNARI AB EPIS∣COPO Et septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipe∣re; so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle un∣der the name of S. Clement. ALL FAITHFULL baptized people must goe to the Bishop to be con∣sign'd, and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtaine the seven fold guifts of the Holy Ghost.

Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spaine affirmes confirmation in this, to have a speciall ex∣cellency besides baptisme, quòd solùm à summis Sa∣cerdotibus confertur, because Bishops only can give confirmation; And the same is said, & proov'd by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great vene∣ration to this holy mystery, quod ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus. It cannot, it may not be perform'd by any, but by the Bishops.

Thus S. Chrysostome speaking of S. Philip con∣verting the Samaritans,* 1.418 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Philip baptizing the men of Sama∣ria, gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized. For HE HAD NOT POWER. For this guift was only of the twelve Apostles. And a little

after: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This was PECU∣LIAR to the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence it comes to passe, that the principall and chiefe of the Church doe it, and none else. And George Pachymeres, the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius;* 1.419 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is re∣quired that a Bishop should consigne faithfull peo∣ple baptiz'd. For this was the Ancient practise.

I shall not need to instance in too many particu∣lars, for that the Ministry of confirmation was by Catholick custome appropriate to Bishops in all a∣ges of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councells, & Fathers; par∣ticularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in* 1.420 Eusebius, a 1.421 Tertullian, S.b 1.422 Innocentius the first,c 1.423 Damasus, d 1.424 S. Leo, ine 1.425 Iohn the third, in S.f 1.426 Gregory, Amphi∣lochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bi∣shop Maximinus confirming Basilius, and Eubulus, theg 1.427 Councell of Orleans, and ofh 1.428 Melda, and lastly ofi 1.429 Sevill which affirmes, Non licere Presby∣teris. . . . per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptiz an∣dis paracletum spiritum tradere. It is not lawfull for Presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of Episcopall power. . . . Chrismate spiritus S. su∣perinfunditur. Vtra{que} verò ista manu, & ore Antisti∣tis impetramus. These are enough for authority, and dogmaticall 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

schisme between the Latine, and Greek Churches,* 1.430 and it was upon this occasion too. For when the Bulgarians were first converted, the Greekes sent Presbyters to baptize, and to confirme them. But the Latins sent againe to have them re-confirmed, both because (as they pretended) the Greekes had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the Presbyters a ca∣pacity of order to give confirmation.

The matters of fact, and acts Episcopall of con∣firmation are innumerable, but most famous are those confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema,* 1.431 and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard, because they were ratified by miracle, saith the An∣cient story. I end this with the saying of S. Hie∣rome, Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In Actibus Apostolo∣rum. Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset,* 1.432 totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. If you aske where it is written? (viz. that Bishops alone should confirme) It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (meaning, by precedent, though not expresse precept) but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command. *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himselfe so confidently in this affaire, for by this we are arm'd against an objection from his own words, for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of Epis∣copall priviledge and peculiar ministration, parti∣cularly, of Confirmation, he saies, it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem. For the honour of the Priesthood, rather then for the necessity of a law.

To this the answer is evident from his own words: That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles; and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy, then a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter. For the question here that is only of concernment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop, but by whom it was reserved? Now S. Hierome saies it was done a∣pud Acta, in the Scripture, therefore by Gods Holy Spirit, and the end he also specifies, viz. for the ho∣nour of that sacred order, non propter legis necessita∣tem, not that there is any necessity of law, that confir∣mation should be administred by the Bishop. Not that a Priest may doe it, but that, as S. Hierome him∣selfe there argues, the Holy Ghost being already gi∣ven in baptisme, if it happens that Bishops may not be had (for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage, and places remote, and destitute of Bi∣shops) then in that case there is not the absolute ne∣cessity 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 mi∣nistration, was indeed an honour to the function, but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying peo∣ple in all cases actually to acquire it. So that this [non necessarium] is not to be referred to the Bi∣shops ministration, as if it were not necessary for him to doe it when it is to be done, not that a Priest may doe it if a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may not be had, but this non neces∣sity is to be referred to confirmation it selfe; so that

if a Bishop cannot be had, confirmation, though with much losse, yet with no danger, may be omit∣ted. This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse, this reconciles him to himselfe, this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions, and conse∣quently to his arguments, and to be sure, no expo∣sition can make these words to intend that this re∣servation of the power of confirmation to Bishops, is not done by the spirit of God, and then let the sense of the words be what they will, they can doe no hurt to the cause; and as easily may we escape from those words of his, to Rusticus Bishop of Nar∣bona. Sed quia scriptum est, Presbyteri duplici ho∣nore honorentur. . . . praedicare eos decet, utile est be∣nedicere, congruum confirmare, &c. It is quoted by Gratian dist. 95. can. ecce ego. But the glosse upon the place expounds him thus, i. e. in fide, the Pres∣byters may preach, they may confirme their Audi∣tors, not by consignation of Chrisme, but by con∣firmation of faith; and for this, quotes a paralell place for the use of the word [Confirmare] by au∣thority of S. Gregory,* 1.433 who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome, ut Orthodoxes Episcopos, Presbyteros, vel quos••un{que} reperire potu∣isset in verbo exhortationis perfectos, ampliùs confir∣maret. Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirme Bishops & Priests in any other sense but this of S. Hieroms in the present, to wit, in faith and doctrine, not in rite, and myste∣ry, and neither could S. Hierome himselfe intend that Presbyters should doe it at all but in this sense

of S. Gregory, for else he becomes an Antistrephon, and his owne opposite.

* 1.434 * Yea, but there is a worse matter then this. S. Ambrose tels of the Egyptian Priests, that they in the absence of the Bishop doe confirme. Deni{que} apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit E∣piscopus. But,

1. The passage is suspitious, for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishopricke, and is no way pertinent to the discourse, but is incircled with a story of a farre different consequence, which is not easily thought to have beene done by any conside∣ring and intelligent Author.

2. But suppose the clause is not surreptitious, but naturall to the discourse, and borne with it, yet it is matter of fact, not of right, for S. Ambrose nei∣ther approves, nor disproves it, and so it must goe for a singular act against the Catholike practise and Lawes of Christendome.

3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious, yet the word [Consignant] is, for S. Austin who hath the same discourse, the same thing, viz: of the dig∣nity of Presbyters, tels this story of the Act and ho∣nour of Presbyters in Alexandria, and all Aegypt, almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose, but he tells it thus, Nam & in Alexandriâ & per to∣tum Aegyptum si desit Episcopus,* 1.435 Consecrat Pres∣byter. So that it should not be consignat, but conse∣crat; for no story tells of any confirmations done in Aegypt by Presbyters, but of consecrating the

Eucharist in cases of Episcopall absence, or commis∣sion I shall give account in the Question of Iurisdi∣ction; that was indeed permitted in Aegypt, and some other places, but Confirmation never, that we can find else where, and this is too improbable to beare weight against evidence and practise Aposto∣licall, and foure Councells, and 16 ancient Catho∣like Fathers, testifying that it was a practise and a Law of Christendome that Bishops onely should con∣firme, 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 objecti∣on; for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sar∣dinia, vt baptizatos Vguant,* 1.436 to aneale baptized people. Now anointing the forehead of the bapti∣zed person, was one of the solemnityes of confir∣mation, so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming; for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Councell, and since that time Sacra∣mentum Chrismatis hath beene the vsuall word for confirmation. But this will not much trouble the buisinesse.

Because it is evident that he meanes it not of con∣firmation, but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptisme. For in his 9^th Epistle he forbids Priests to anoynt baptized people, now here is precept against precept, therefore it must be understood of severall anoyntings, and so S. Gregory expounds himselfe in this 9^th Epistle, Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis in fronte Chrismate non praesumant. Presbyters may not a∣noynt

baptised people twice, once they might; now that this permission of anoynting was that which was a ceremony of baptisme, not an act of confir∣mation, we shall see by comparing it with other Ca∣nons. *In the collection of the Orientall Canons by Martinus Bracarensis,* 1.437 It is decreed thus, [Presby∣ter praesente Episcopo non SIGNET infantes, nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum. A Priest must not signe infantes without leave of the Bishop if he be pre∣sent. Must not signe them] that is with Chrisme in their foreheads, and that in baptisme; for the cir∣cumstant Canons doe expressly explicate, and de∣termine it; for they are concerning the rites of bap∣tisme, 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 wee see a consignation permitted to the presbyters in the Easterne Churches to be used in baptisme, in the absence of the Bishop, and this an act of indulgence and favour, and therefore ex∣traordinary, 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 us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Crosse, and anealing. Thus it is us'd in the first Arausican Councell for extreame Vnction,* 1.438 which is there in case of extreame necessity permitted to Presbyters: Hae∣reticos in mortis discrimine positos, Si Catholici esse desiderent, si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chris∣mate, & benedictione CONSIGNARI placet. Consig∣n'd is the word, and it was clearly in extreame Un∣ction,

for that rite was not then ceased, and it was in anealing a dying body, and a part of reconci∣liation, and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancyed of any other consignation. But I re∣turne.* 1.439 *** The first Councell of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme, but Bishops only, and takes order, ut de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum an∣to diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae pos∣sit occurrere; that the Chrisme be fetch't by the De∣acons from the Bishop to be us'd in all Churches. But for what use? why, it was destinatum ad diem Pascbae sayes the Canon, against the Holy time of Easter, and then, at Easter was the solemnity of publike baptismes, so that it was to be us'd in bap∣tisme. And this sense being premised, the Canon permits to Presbyters to signe with Chrisme, the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sar∣dinia. Statutum verò est, Diaconum non Chrismare, sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo, praesente verò, si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum. Now although this be e∣vident enough, yet it is somthing clearer in the first Arausican Counsell,* 1.440 Nullus ministrorum qui BAPTI∣ZANDI recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari. The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with oyntment was us'd in baptisme, and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Grogory permitted to the Presbyters, not the other, for he expressely forbad 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 expresse and di∣stinctive termes, Presbyteris Chrismate baptizetos ungere licet,* 1.441 sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum; there is a cleare permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptisme, but he subjoynes a prohibiti∣on to Priests for doing it in confirmation; non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Epis∣copis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum.

By the way; some, that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregory's dispensation to be only in baptismall Chrisme, read it, [Vt baptiz an∣dos ungant] not [baptizatos] so Gratian, so S. Thomas, but it is needlesse to be troubled with that, for Innocentius in the decretall now quoted useth the word [Baptizatos] and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confir∣mation.

I know no other objection, and these wee see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of confirmations done only by Apostles, and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the pra∣ctice of the Church, and the power of cofirmation by many Councells, and Fathers appropriated to Bishops, and denyed to Presbyters, and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their owne opinion, but witnesses of a Catholike practise, and doe actu∣ally attest it as done by a Catholike consent; and no one example in all antiquity ever produc'd of any Priest that did, no law that a Priest might impose hands for confirmation; wee may conclude it to be a

power Apostolicall in the Originall, Episcopall in the Succession, and that in this power, the order of a Bishop is higher then that of a Presbyter, and so de∣clar'd by this instance of Catholike Practise.

THus farre I hope we are right.* 1.442 But I call to mind, that in the Nosotrophium of the old Phi∣losopher 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 E∣piscopacy; some endure not the Name, and they in∣deed deserve to be over head and eares; some will have them all one in office with Presbyters, as at first they were in Name; and they had need bath up to the Chinne; but some stand shallower, and grant a little distinction, a precedency perhaps for order sake, but no preheminence in reiglement, no superiority of Iurisdiction; Others by all meanes would be thought to be quite thorough in behalfe of Bishops order, and power such as it is, but call for a reduction to the primitive state, and would have all Bishops like the Primitive, but because by this meanes they thinke to impaire their power, they may well endure to be up to the ankles, their error indeed is lesse, and their pretence fairer, but the use they make of it, of very ill consequence. But cu∣ring the mistake will quickly cure this distemper, That then shall be the present issue, that in the Pri∣mitive Church Bishops had more power, and grea∣ter exercise of absolute jurisdiction, then now Men

will endure to be granted, or then themselves are very forward to challenge.

1. Then;* 1.443 The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop, did it in termes of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith S. Ignatius; The Bishop carryes the representment of God the Father, that is, in power and authority to be sure, (for how else?) so as to be the supreme in suo ordine, in offices Ec∣clesiasticall. And againe, Quid enim aliud est Epis∣copus quàm is qui omni Principatu,* 1.444 & potestate supe∣rior est? Here his superiority and advantage is ex∣pressed to be in his power; A Bishop is greater and higher then all other power, viz: in materiâ, or gradu religionis. And in his Epistle to the Magne∣sians; Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei con∣cordiâ omnia agere EPISCOPO PRESIDENTE LO∣CO DEI. Doe all things in Vnity, the Bishop being PRESIDENT IN THE PLACE OF GOD. President in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his E∣pistle to the Church of Smyrna, Honora Episcopum ut PRINCIPEM SACER DOTUM imaginem Dei re∣ferentem, Dei quidem propter Principatum, Christi verò propter Sacerdotium. It is full of fine expressi∣on both for Eminency of order, and Iurisdiction. The Bishop is the PRINCE OF THE PRIESTS bear∣ring the image of God for his Principality (that's his jurisdiction and power) but of Christ himselfe for his Priesthood, (that's his Order.) S. Ignatius hath spoken fairely, and if we consider that he was so pri∣mitive a man that himselfe saw Christ in the flesh, and

liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity, and dyed a Martyr, and hath been honoured as holy Catholike by all posterity, certainly these testimonyes must needs be of Great pressure, being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis, not casually slipt from him, and by incogitancy, but resolutely and frequently.

But this is attested by the generall expressions of after ages. Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONO∣RIS tui,* 1.445 saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus. Ex∣ecute the POWER OF THY DIGNITY upon the re∣fractary Deacon; And VIGOR EPISCOPALIS, and AUTHORITAS CATHEDRae are the the words ex∣pressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert, in the same Epistle. This is high enough. So is that which he presently subjoynes, calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae guber∣nandae 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;* 1.446 A place of Mastership or authority deliver'd by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors.* Eusebius speaking of Dionysius, who succeeded Heraclas, he received (faith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.447 The Bishoprick of the PRECEDENCY over the Churches of Alexandria. *〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.448 saith the Councell of Sardis; to the TOP or HEIGHT os Epis∣copacy. APICES & PRINCIPES OMNIUM, so Op∣tatus calls Bishops; the CHEIFE, and HEAD of all; and S. Denys of Alexandria,* 1.449 Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum, & ad alios quamplurimos

ECCLESIARUM PRINCIPES de fide Catholicâ suâ, saith Eusebius.* 1.450 And Origen calls the Bishop, eum qui TOTIUS ECCLESIae ARCEM obtinet, He that hath obtayn'd the TOWER OR HEIGHT of the Church.

The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo ordayn'd that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous pe∣ople upon the Church's pale, so as the Bishop had in eff••ct no Diocesse, yet they should enjoy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the authority of their PRESID••NCY according to their proper state; their appropriate presidency. And the same Councell calls the Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the PRELATE or PRE∣FECT of the Church; I know not how to expound it better. But it is something more full in the Greeks Councell of Carthage Commanding that the con∣vert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop,* 1.451 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that GOVERNES the Church in that place.** 1.452 And in the Councell of Antioch 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Bishop hath POWER OVER the affayrs of the Church. * Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacu∣la gubernabat. S. Sylvester [the Bishop] held the Reynes or the stearne of the Roman Church, saith The∣odoret.* 1.453

But the instances of this kind are infinite, two may be as good as twenty,* 1.454 and these they are. The first is of S. Ambrose; HONOR, & SUBLIMITAS E∣piscopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The HONOUR and SUBLIMITY of the Episcopall Or∣der

is beyond all comparison great. And their com∣mission he specifyes to be in Pasce oves meas; Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur, meritò RECTO∣RIBUS suis subdi dicuntur &c: The sheepe are delive∣red to Bishops, as to RULERS and are made their Sub∣jects; And in the next chapter, Haec verò cuncta,* 1.455 Fra∣tres, ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis, vt osten∣deremus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdo∣tibus, nihil SUBLIMIUS EPISCOPIS reperiri: vt cùm dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis de∣monstramus, & dignè noscamus quid sumus. . . . actio∣ne potius, quàm Nomine demonstremus. These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher, no∣thing more excellent then the DIGNITY, AND E∣MINENCE OF A BISHOP, &c. The other is of S. Hierome, CURA TOTIUS ECCLESIAE AD E∣PISCOPUM PERTINET, The care of the whole Church appertaines to the Bishop. But more confi∣dently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luci∣ferianos; Ecclesiae salus in SUMMI SACERDOTIS DIGNITATE pendet,* 1.456 cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus EMINENS DETUR POTESTAS, tot in Ec∣clesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes, The safe∣ty of the Church consists in the DIGNITY OF A BISHOP, to whom vnlesse an EMINENT and UNPA∣RALELL'D POWER be given by all, there will be as many Schismes as Priests.

Here is dignity, and authority, and power enough expressed; and if words be expressive of things (and there is no other use of thē) then the Bishop is SUPE∣RIOUR IN A PEERELESSE, AND INCOMPARABLE

AUTHORITY, and all the whole Diocesse are his subjects, viz: in regimine Spirituali.

BUT from words let us passe to things.* 1.457 For the Faith and practise of Christendome requires o∣bedience, Universall obedience, to be given to Bi∣shops. I will begin againe with Ignatius, that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primi∣tive consistence, may see what they gaine by it, for the more primitive the testimonies are, the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops; for it happened in this, as in all other things; at first, Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties, more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith; and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe, it is nothing, but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour, and obey them, it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion, and particu∣larly of Charity, come to so low a declension, as it can scarce stand alone; and faith, which shall scarce be found upon earth at the comming of the Sonne of Man.

But to our businesse.

S. Ignatius in his epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse ita{que} est (saith he) quicquid facitis, ut sine E∣PISCOPO NIHIL TENTETIS. So the Latine of Vedelius, which I the rather chuse, because I am willing to give all the advantage I can. It is necessa∣ry (saith the good Martyr) that whatsoever ye doe, you should attempt nothing without your BISHOP. And to the Magnesians, Decet ita{que} vos obedire E∣PISCOPO,

ET IN NULLO ILLI REFRAGARI. It is fitting that ye should obey your BISHOP, and in NO∣THING to be refractory to him. Here is both a De∣cet, and a Necesse est, already. It is very fitting, it is necessary. But if it be possible, we have a fuller ex∣pression yet, in the same Epistle; Quemadmodum e∣nim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, nec enim possum facere à me ipso quicquam: sic & vos SINE EPISCO∣PO, nec Presbyter, nec Diaconus, nec Laicus. Nec QUICQUAM videatur VOBIS CONSENTANEUM quod sit PRAETER ILLIUS IUDICIUM, quod enim tale est, iniquum est, & Deo inimicum. Here is obe∣dience Vniversall, both in respect of things, and persons; and all this no lesse then absolutely necessa∣ry.

For as Christ obey'd his Father in all things, saying, of my selfe I can doe nothing: so nor you without your BISHOP; whoever you be, whether Priest, or Deacon, or Lay-man. Let nothing please you, which the Bishop mislikes, for all such things are wicked, and in enemity with God.

* But it seems S. Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to. Wee have already reckon'd the Trallians, and the Magnesians. But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ye Pres∣byters be subject to your Bishop. The same to the Phi∣ladelphians. Sine EPISCOPO nihil facite, Doe no∣thing without your BISHOP. But this is better ex∣plicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna. Si∣ne EPISCOPO NEMO QUIC QUAM FACIAT eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant. No man may doe ANY

THING WITHOUT THE BISHOP, viz. of those things which belong to the Church. So that this saying expounds all the rest, for this universall obe∣dience is to be understood according to the sense of the Church, viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiasti∣call cognizance, all Church affaires. And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarpe their Bishop; that he also look to it, that nothing be done without his leave. Nihil sine TUO ARBITRIO agatur, nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem. As thou must doe nothing against Gods will, so let nothing (in the Church) be done without thine. By the way, ob∣serve, he saies not, that as the Presbytery must doe nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop nothing without them; But, so the Bishop nothing without God. But so it is. Nothing must BE DONE without the Bishop; And therefore although he incourages them that can, to remaine in Virginity, yet this, if it be either done with pride, or without the Bishop, it is spoiled. For, si gloriatus fuerit, periit, & si id ipsum statuatur SINE EPISCOPO, corruptum est. His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarpe, is with an [E∣piscopo attendite, sicut & Deus vobis] The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bi∣shop. Hinc & vos decet accedere SENTENTIAE E∣PISCOPI,* 1.458 qui secundùm Deum vos pascit, quemad∣modum & facitis, edocti à spiritu; you must therefore conforme to the sentence of the BISHOP, as indeed yee doe already, being taught so to doe by Gods holy Spi∣rit.

There needs no more to be said in this cause, if

the authority of so great a man will beare so great a burden. What the man was, I said before: what these Epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon* 1.459 Vedelius, a man who is no waies to be suspe∣cted as a party for Episcopacy, or rather upon the credit ofa 1.460 Eusebius,b 1.461 S. Hierome, andc 1.462 Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have ta∣ken these excerpta, for naturall and genuine. And now I will make this use of it; Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state, should doe well to stand close to their principles, and count that the best Episcopacy which is first; and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affaire, and see what is gotten in the bargaine. For my part, since they that call for such a reduction hope to gaine by it, and then would most certainly have abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height, but expect such subordination and confor∣mity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity. But let this be remembred all along, in the specification of the parts of their Iurisdiction. But as yet I am in the generall demonstration of o∣bedience.

The Councell of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination,* 1.463 and dependance to the Bishop, summes them up thus,* 1.464 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So likewise the Presbyters let them doe nothing without the precept and counsell of the Bishop, so is the transla∣tion of Isidore, ad verbum. This Councell is anci∣ent

enough, for it was before the first Nicene. So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly.* 1.465 * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcopo∣rum nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaqua{que} parochiâ ali∣quid agere, saies the thirteenth Canon of the An••yran Councell according to the Latine of Isidore. The same thing is in the first Councell of Toledo,* 1.466 the ve∣ry same words for which I cited the first Councell of Arles, viz. That Presbyters doe nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop.* 1.467 * Esto SUB∣IECTUS PONTIFICI Tuo, & quasi animae paren∣tem suscipe. It is the counsell of S. Hierome. Be sub∣ject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soule.

I shall not need to derive hither any more 〈…〉〈…〉 the Ecclesiasticall orders; they therefore are to sub∣mit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spi∣rituall with which they are intrusted. For either there is no Government at all, or the Laity must governe the Church, or else the Clergy must. To say there is no Government, is to leave the Church in worse condition then a tyranny. To say that the Laity should governe the Church, when all Eccle∣siasticall Ministeries are committed to the Clergy, is to say, Scripture means not what it saies; for it is

to say, that the Clergy must be Praepositi, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and praelati, and yet the prelation, and presiden∣cy, and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates, and that it is not in them who are called so. * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spirituall are inferior to the Clergy, and must in things pertaining to the Soule be rul'd by them, with whom their Soules are in∣trusted; then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy, to whom all the other Clergy them∣selves are bound to be obedient. Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councells, and Fa∣thers, the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop, much more must the Laity, and since the Bishop must rule in chiefe, and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction, 〈…〉〈…〉 S. Iames translated by Ruffinus, saith it was the do∣ctrine of Peter, according to the institution of Christ, that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things; and in his third Epistle; that Presbyters, and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the license of the Bishop. * And to make this businesse up compleat, all these authorities of great antiquity, were not the prime constitutions in those severall Churches respective∣ly, but meere derivations from tradition Apostoli∣call;

for not only the thing, but the words so often mentioned are in the 40^th Canon of the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Councell of Antioch) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing. without leave of the Bishop, for to him the Lords peo∣ple is committed, and he must give an account for their soules. * And if a Presbyter shall contemne his owne Bishop making conventions apart, and e∣recting another altar, he is to be deposed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith the 32. Canon) as a lover of Principality: inti∣mating, that he arrogates Episcopall dignity, and so is ambitious of a Principality. The issue then is this. * The Presbyters, and Clergy, and Laity must obey, therefore the Bishop must governe and give them lawes. It was particularly instanc'd in the case of S. Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Theodoret, He adorned, and instructed Pontus with these Lawes,* 1.468 so he, reckoning up the ex∣tent of his jurisdiction.

* But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops.* 1.469

THE Bishops were Ecclesiasticall Iudges over the Presbyters, the inferiour Clergy and the Laity. What they were in Scripture who were constitu∣ted in presidency over causes spirituall, I have alrea∣dy twice explicated; and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for

soules they had the rule over them, and because no regiment can be without coërcion, therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of cau∣ses, and coërcion of persons. * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on de∣linquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to doe it.* 1.470 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunica∣ted BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else, but by him that did so censure him, vnlesse the BISHOP THAT CENSUR'D HIM be dead. The same is repeated in the Nicene Councell;* 1.471 only it is permitted that any one may appeale to a Synod of BISHOPS, si fortè aliquâ indignatione, aut contentio∣ne, aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui, excommuni∣cati sint, if he thinks himselfe wrong'd by prejudice or passion; and when the Synod is met, hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones. But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum, so the Canon; ut ita demum hi qui ••b culpas suas EPISCOPORUM SUORUM OFFEN∣SAS meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris ex∣communicati habeantur, quous{que} in c••mmuni, vel IPSL ERISCOPO SUO UISUM FUERIT humaniorum circà eos ferre sententiam. The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displea∣sure of their Bishop, and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod, or their owne Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence. * * This Canon

we see, relates to the Canon of the Apostles, and affix∣es the judicature of Priests, and Deacons to the Bi∣shops: commanding their censures to be held as firme and valid: only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters, and Deacons particularly; so the Nicene Canon speakes indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocesse and jurisdiction.

The fourth Councell of Carthage gives in expresse termes the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bi∣shop,* 1.472 calling ayd from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractary, and disobedient. Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione, vel potestate ad con∣cordiam trahat, inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet. If the Bishops reason will not end the contro∣versies of Clergy-men, his power must; but if any man list to be contentious, intimating (as I suppose out of the Nicene Councell) with frivolous appeales, and impertinent protraction, the Synod [of Bishops] must condemne him, viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence. * The Councell of Antioch is yet more particular in it's Sanction for this affayre, inti∣mating a cleare distinction of proceeding in the cau∣ses of a Bishop, and the other of Priests, and Dea∣cons.* 1.473 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. If a Bishop shall be de∣posed by a Synod (viz. of Bishops, according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon) or a PRIEST, OR DEACON BY HIS OWNE BISHOP, if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopelesse of ab∣solution. But here we see that the ordinary Iudge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops; but of Priests and Dea∣cons

the Bishop alone: And the sentence of the Bi∣shop is made firme omnimodò in the next Canon; Si quis Presbyter, vel Diaconus proprio contempto Epis∣copo. . . . privatim congregationem effecerit, & altare erexerit, & Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec ve∣lit ei parere, nec morem gerere primò & secundò vo∣canti, hic damnetur omni modo. . . . Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare, & sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur. What Presbyter so∣ever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appeare at his first, or second Summons, let him be deposed, and if he shall persist to disturbe the Church, let him be given over to the secular powers. * Adde to this the first Canon of the same Councell, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c: If any one be excommunicate by his owne Bishop &c: as it is in the foregoing Ca∣nons of Nice and the Apostles. The Result of these Sanctions is this. The Bishop is the Iudge: the Bishop is to inflict censures; the Presbyters, and Deacons are either to obey, or to be deposed: No greater evi∣dence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction, and this established by all the power they had; and this did extend, not only to the Clergy, but to the Laity; for that's the close of the Canon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This constitution is concerning the Laity, and the Pres∣byters, and the Deacons, and all that are within the rule, viz: that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion, they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere.

But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS, The Bishops

Audience-Court is of larger power in the Councell of Chalcedon,* 1.474 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any Clergy man have any cause against a Cler∣gy man, let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But first le•• the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP, or by the BISHOPS LEAVE be∣fore such persons as the contesting parties shall desire. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church. Here is not only a subordi∣nation of the Clergy in matters criminall, but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop, under paine of the Canon. * I end this with the at••estation of the Councell of Sardis, exact∣ly of the same Spirit, the same injunction, and al∣most the same words with the former Canons. Ho∣sius the President said;* 1.475 If any Deacon, or Priest, or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP, that other Bishop, must by no meanes receive him into his com∣munion.

Thus farre we have matter of publike right, and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge 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-Ca∣nons, of the Generall Councells of Nice, and of Chalcedon, of the Councells of Antioch, of Sardis, of Carthage; then it is evident, that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cogni∣sance, and hath power of censures, and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction.

This thing only by the way; in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts. For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches, and in some times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 S. Ignatius calls them; counsellors and assessors with the Bishop; yet the power, and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop, and no concurrent jurisdiction mention'd in the Pres∣bytery: but of this hereafter more particularly.

* Now we may see these Canons attested by practice, and dogmaticall resolution. S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause; because he, if any man, hath gi∣ven all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters: and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop, and that absolutely, and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery, we are all well enough, and without suspition. * Diù patientiam meam tenui (Fratres Charissimi) saith he,* 1.476 writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church. He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi with∣out his consent▪ and though he was as willing as a∣ny

man to comply both with the Clergy, and peo∣ple of his D••••cesse, yet he also must assert his owne priviledges, and peculiar. Quod enim non pericu∣lam metuere debemus de offensâ Domini, quando ali∣qui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci 〈◊〉〈◊〉 memores, ••ed ne{que} futurum Domini judicium, ne{que} nunc praepo∣situm sibi Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam om∣nino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum cōtumeliâ & contemtu Praeposititotum sibi vendicent. The mat∣ter was, that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the perfor∣mance of penance according to the severity of the Canon; and this was done without the Bishops leave, by the Presbyters [Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them] a thing that was never heard of, till that time. Totum sibi vendicabant, They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave, yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads. Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe, by his owne authority alone, suspends them till his returne, and so shewes that his autho∣rity was independant, theirs was not, and then pro∣mises they shall have a faire hearing before him, in the presence of the Confessors, and all the people. Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offerre, acturi & apud nos, & apud Confessores ipsos, & apud plebem Vniversam causam suam. * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian sus∣pended these Presbyters, by his owne authority, in absence from his Church, and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to re∣store him to his See.

But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate; saying, they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave, Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est, for so was the Catholike custome ever, that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave; but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement,* 1.477 and dishonour the Bishop. Yea, but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi, and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests. What should the Presbyters doe in this ca••e•• S. Cyprian tells them, writing to the Confessors. Pe∣titiones ita{que}, & desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent. Let them keepe your petitions for the BISHOP to con∣sider of. But they did not,* 1.478 therefore he suspended them, because they did not reservare Episcopo hono∣rem Sacerdotij sui, & cathedrae; Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire, and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bi∣shops leave.

The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affayre;* 1.479 for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop, he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop, and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the busi∣nesse that he would complaine to him, cum pro E∣PISCOPATUS VIGORE, & CATHEDRAE AUTHO∣RITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari; When as he had power Episcopall and suf∣ficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy. The whole Epistle is very perti∣nent

to this Question, and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction, the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian; Fungaris circa cum PO∣TESTATE HONORIS TUI, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas. Exercise the power of your honour upon him, and either suspend him, or depose him. * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church,* 1.480 vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere opor∣tet with full authority, as becomes a Bishop,

Socrates telling of the promotion, and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome,* 1.481 saies, that in reforming the lives of the Clergy, he was too fastuous and severe. Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ec∣clesiae, erat plurimis ex••sus, & veluti furiosum uni∣versi declinabant. He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy, that he was hated by them, which clearely showes that the Bishop had jurisdiction, and authority over them; for tyranny is the excesse of power, & authority is the subject matter of rigour, and austerity. But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio, nunquam poteris, â Episcope, hos corrigere, nisi uno baculo percusseris Vni∣versos. Thou canst not amend the Clergy unlesse thou strikest them all with thy Pastorall rod. S. Iohn Chry∣stome did not indeed doe so, but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis. He deprived, and suspended most of the Cler∣gy men for diverse causes: and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him; for the delin∣quent

Ministers set the people on work against him. * But here we see that the power of censures was clearely, and only in the Bishop, for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy, [Vniversos;] And he did actually suspend most of them, [pluri∣mos:] and I think it will not be believed the Presby∣tery of his Church should joyne with their Bishop to suspend themselves.* 1.482 Adde to this that Theodoret also affirmes that Chrysostome intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church, quas quicun{que} praevaricari praesumerent eas ad tomplum prohibebat accedere, ALL them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church.

*** Thus S. Hierome to Riparius,* 1.483 Miror sanctum Episcopum, in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur, acquiescere furori ejus, & non virgâ APOSTOLICA, virgâ{que} ferreâ confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat. I wonder (saith he) that the holy Bishop is not mov'd at the fu∣ry of Vigilantius, and does not breake him with his A∣POSTOLICALL rod, that by this temporary punish∣ment his soule might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastorall staffe is of faire power and coërcion.

The Councell of Aquileia convoked against the Arians, is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity, and did actually exercise cen∣sures 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 con∣demned and would faine have been judg'd by some honourable personages of the Laity. But S. Ambrose said, Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent, non Laici de Sacerdotibus. Bishops must judge of the Laity, not the Laity of Bishops. That's for the jus; and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Councell; S. Am∣brose Bishop of Millaine gave sentence [Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio, & carendum, & in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur.] * The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresy the Bishops at Constantinople depos'd, Eusebius giving sentence,* 1.484 and chose Basilius in his Roome.

* But their Grand-father was serv'd no bet∣ter. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria serv'd him neither better nor worse.* 1.485 So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator, priùs quidem revocare eum admonitionibus, & consilijs ni∣tebatur. Cùm verò eum superbire vidisset, & apertè impietatis facinora praedicare, ex ordine Sacerdotali removit. The Bishop first admonish'd the heretick, but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he de∣prived him of the execution of his Priestly function.

This crime indeed deserv'd it highly. It was for a lesse matter that Triferius the Bishop excommuni∣cated Exuperantius a Presbyter, viz. for a personall misdemeanour, and yet this censure was ratified by the Councell of Taurinum,* 1.486 and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi, to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censur'd him. statuit quo{que}

de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodu••, qui ad in∣juriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia & multa congesserat, & frequentibus ••um contumeliis provoca∣verat. . . . propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Domini∣câ communione privatus, ut in ejus sit arbitrio resti∣tutio ipsius, in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio. His restitution was therefore left in his power, because originally his censure was. * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Councell, qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus, who was puni∣shed by Triferius the Bishop▪ hoc ei humanitate Con∣cilii reservato, at ipse Triferius in potestate habeat, quando voluerit ei relaxare.

Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick, and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest, and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Councell, and the absolution re∣serv'd to the Bishop too, which indeed was an act of favour; for they having complain'd to the Councell, by the Councell might have been absolved, but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his owne power.

These are particular instances, and made pub∣like by acts conciliary intervening. But it was the Generall Canon and Law of H. Church.

Thus we have it expressed in the Councell of Aga∣tho.* 1.487 Contumaces verò Clerici prout dignitatis ordo permiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur. Refractary Clerks must be punished by their Bishops, according at the order of their dignity allowes. I end this par∣ticular with some Canons commanding Clerks to

submit to the judgement and censures of their Bi∣shop, under a Canonicall penalty; and so goe on ad alia.

In the second Councell of Carthage,* 1.488 Alypius E∣piscopus dixit, nee illud praetermittendum est, ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo suo correptus, aut excommunicatus, rumore vel superbiâ inflatus, puta∣verit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda, vel aliud eri∣gendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem discipli∣nam{que} crediderit, non exeat impunitus. And the same is repeated in the Greeke Code of the African Canons.* 1.489 If any Presbyter being excommunicated, or otherwise punished by his Bishop, shall not desist, but contest with his Bishop, let him by no means goe unpu∣nished.* 1.490 * The like is in the Councell of Chalcedon, the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Councell of Antioch, and of the Apostles.* 1.491 But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Councell of Nice into which I was baptized I know, Other faith I know not. They are Bishops; They have power to excom∣municate and condemne, and they have power to doe what they please: other faith then this I know none. * This is to purpose, and it was in one of the foure great Councells or Christendome which all ages

since have received, with all veneration and devout estimate.

Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius,* 1.492 and this ratifies those acts of con∣demnation which the Bishops had passed upon de∣linquent Clerks. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their OWN BISHOPS; although Nesto∣rius did endeavour to restore them, yet their con∣demnation should still remaine vigorous and con∣firm'd. Vpon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation, which indeed of it selfe is cleare e∣nough in the Canon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hence you have learn'd that Me∣tropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergy, and suspend them, and sometimes depose them. Nay, they are bound to it, Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet (ne per plures serpant dira contagia) separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam. It is necessary that the BISHOP should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound, least their infection scatter,* 1.493 so S. Austin. * And there∣fore the fourth Councell of* 1.494 Carthage com∣mands, ut Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommu∣nicet, That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren (viz. such as bring Clergy causes* and Catholick doctrine, to be punished in secular tribunalls;) For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis, the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholike communion.

I adde no more but that excellent saying of S. 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, & praecipie∣bant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fierent &c. And againe;* 1.495 Corripiantur ita{que} à praepositis suis sub∣diti correptionibus de charitate venientibus, pro cul∣parum diversitate diversis, vel minoribus, vel am∣plioribus, quia & ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium, quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est, potest, si Deus voluerit, in correptionem sa∣luberrimam cedere, at{que} proficere. Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocesse, and to punish the disobedient, and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery, [damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium] a con∣demnation of the Bishops infliction.

Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Pri∣mitive Christendome, by the Canons of three Generall Counsells, and divers other Provinciall, which are made Catholick by adoption, and in∣serting them into the Code of the Catholick Church, that the Bishop was Iudge of his Clergy, and of the Lay-people of his Diocesse; that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of de∣linquency; that his censures were firme and valid; and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in

commission, or fact▪ in power, or exercise: but ex∣communication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch't by them, either in full Councell, if it was a Bishops cause, or in his own Consistory, if it was the cause of a Priest, or the inferior Clergy, or a Laick, unlesse in cases of ap∣peale, 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 Imperiall Con∣stitutions.* 1.496

For the making up this Paragraph complete, I must insert two considerations. First con∣cerning universality of causes within the Bi∣shops cognisance. And secondly of Persons.

The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speake in most large, and com∣prehensive termes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They have power to doe what they list. Their power is as large as their will. So the Councell of Chalcedon before cited. It was no larger though, then S. Pauls expression, [for to this end also did I write, that I might know the proofe of you,* 1.497 whether ye be obedient IN ALL THINGS.] A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universall obedi∣ence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And so the stile of the Church runne in descention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Igna∣tius, ye must doe NOTHING without your BISHOP, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.498 to contradict him in NO∣THING. The expression is frequent in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to comprehend all things in

his judgement, or cognisance, so the Councell of Antioch.* 1.499

* But these Universall expressions must be un∣derstood secundùm Materiam subjectam, so S. Ig∣natius expresses himselfe. Ye must without your Bishop doe nothing; nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Councell of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The things of the Church, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted. They are Ecclesiasticall persons, it is an Ecclesiasticall power they are indowed with, it is for a spirituall end, viz the regiment of the Church, and the good of soules, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopall cog∣nisance. And what things are those?

1. Then, it is certaine that since Christ hath pro••essed, his Kingdome is not of this world, that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty.

Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times? Non cripit mortalia

Qui regna dat Coelestia. So the Church us'd to sing. Whatsoever therefore the secular tri∣bunall did take cognisance of before it was Christi∣an, the same it takes notice of after it is Christ'ned. And these are; all actions civill, all publike violati∣ons of justice, all breach of Municipall lawes. These the Church hath nothing to doe with, unlesse by the

favour of Princes and common-wealths it be indul∣ged to them in honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae; but then when it is once indulged, that act which does annull such pious vowes, is just contrary to that religion which first gave them, and then unlesse there was sinne in the donative, the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae. But this it may be is impertinent.

2. The Bishops ALL, comes in after this; And he is judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock, by it's new distin∣ctive Principles. I say, by it's new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the lawes of nature, there the secular tribunall is also extended if it be Christian; The Bishop gets nothing of that: But those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the republike) hath introduc'd all them, and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is judge of. Such are causes of faith, Mini∣stration of Sacraments, and Sacramentals, subordina∣tion of inferiour Clergy to their Superiour, censures, irregularities, Orders hierarchicall, rites and ceremo∣nies, liturgyes, and publike formes of prayer, (as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxolo∣gyes, * 1.500 and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome) and all such things as are in imme∣diate dependance of these, as dispensation of Church Vessels, and Ornaments, and Goods, receiving and dis∣posing the Patrimony of the Church, and whatso∣ever 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 pecunia∣rum gerere. He that is intrusted with our pretious soules, may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people.

3. There are some things of a mixt nature; and something of the secular interest, and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution, and these are of double cognisance: the secular power, and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall ca∣pacities take knowledge of them. Such are the de∣linquencyes of Clergy-men, who are both Clergy, and subjects too; Clerus Domini, and Regis subditi; and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a vi∣olation of that right which the State must defend, but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy, and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop, therefore the Bishop also may punish him; And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty, the Bishop also may impose a censure, for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two. But of this nature also are the convening of Synods, the power whereof is in the King, and in the Bishop severally, insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have pecu∣liar interest; The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity, in which religion hath the

deepest interest; and the Church, for the mainte∣nance of faith. And therefore both Prince and Bi∣shop have indicted Synods in severall ages, upon the exigence of severall occasions, and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience, and attendance upon such solemnities.

4. Because Christianity is after the common∣wealth, and is a capacity superadded to it, therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chief∣ly in the King; The Supremacy here is his, and so it is in all things of this nature, which are called [Ec∣clesiasticall] because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae, ad finem religionis, but they are of a different nature, and use from things [Spirituall] because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro, and are separate from the in∣terest of the commonwealth in it's particular capa∣city, for such things only, are properly spirituall.

5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only, viz. infliction of cen∣sures by excommunications, or other minores plagae which are in order to it. But yet this internall com∣pulsory through the duty of good Princes to God, and their favour to the Church, is assisted by the se∣cular arme, either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy, or some other way abetting the censures of the Church, and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then, Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part; an externall, and an internall; this is deriv'd from Christ, that from the King, which because it is con∣current

in all acts of Iurisdiction, therefore it is, that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction, viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory.

* And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour, or his Prefect, or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith, not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that, or that the Bi∣shops were not; But in case of the pervicacy of a pee∣vish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church, but flew to the secular power for assistance, hoping by taking sanctuary there, to in∣gage the favour of the Prince: In this case the Bi∣shops 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, & Hono∣ratus the Prefect,* 1.501 Constantius being Emperour. For, all that the Prefect did, or the Emperour in this case, was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties, and to incou∣rage the Catholikes; but the precise act of Iudica∣ture even in this case was in the Bishops, for they de∣posed Aëtius for his heresie, for all his confident appeale, and Macedonius, Eleusius, Basilius, Ortasius, and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes. * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution, and assertion of S. Ambrose, who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges, though Delegates of the Emperour.* 1.502 Quando audisti (Clementissime Im∣perator) in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse? When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of

Faith did judge a Bishop? To be sure, it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect; for if they had ap∣pealed to him, or to his Master Constantius for judg∣ment of the Article, and not for incouragement and secular assistance, S. Ambrose his confident Questi∣on of [Quando audisti?] had quickly been answe∣red, even with saying; presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius, and Honoratus. * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose de∣posed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia, because he refused to answer, except it were before some ho∣nourable personages of the Laity. And it is observe∣able that the Arians were the first (and indeed they offer'd at it often) that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith, for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall, hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party, by making him Umpire. But the Catholike Bishops made humble, and faire remon∣strance of the distinction of powers, and Iurisdicti∣ons; and as they might not intrench upon the Roy∣alty, so neither betray that right which Christ con∣credited to them to the incroachment of an exteri∣our jurisdiction and power. It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia,* 1.503 a man so famous and exemplary, that he was call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops, and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance, insteed of a Placet, he gave this answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature, medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops. The MILITIA, and the POLITI•• are thine, but matters of FAITH, and SPIRIT, are of EPISCOPALL cognisance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Such was the freedome of the in∣genuaus L••••ntius. Answerable to which, was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia & the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him, ut digna∣retur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse, that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article. Respondens Va∣lentinianus, ait, Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari. Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint. Cum{que} haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt E∣piscopi.* 1.504 So Sozomen reports the story. The Empe∣rour 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 apper∣taine; Upon which intimation given, the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum. And thus a double power met in the Bishops. A divine right to decide the ar∣ticle. Mihi fas non est, (saith the Emperour) it is not lawfull for me to meddle; And then a right from the Emperour to assemble, for he gave them leave to call a Councell. These are two distinct powers, One from Christ, the other from the Prince. ***

And now upon this occasion, I have faire oppor∣tunity

to insert a consideration, The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses; all, (I meane) in the sense above explicated; they have power to inflict censures, excommunication is the highest, the rest are parts of it, and in order to it. Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of, or may not the secular power find our some externall compul∣sory in stead of it, and forbid the Church to use ex∣communication, in certaine cases?

1. To this, I answer, that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may, or such in which they must use excommunication, then, in these cases no power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away.

2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication; so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulso∣ry. For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij, as most certainly shee is not, the Church cannot receive power to put men to death, or to inflict lesser paines in order to it, or any thing above a sa∣lutary penance, I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall, then they give the Church what shee must not, cannot take. I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death, as any men; but not in the formality of Clergy∣men. A Court of life and death, cannot be an Ec∣clesiasticall tribunall; and then if any man, or com∣pany of Men should perswade the Church not to

inflict her censures upon delinquents, in some cases in which shee might lawfully inflict them, and pre∣tend to give her another compulsory; they take a∣way the Church-consistory, and erect a very secu∣lar Court, dependant on themselves, and by conse∣quence to be appeal'd to from themselves, and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for. * Whoever therefore should be consen∣ting to any such permutation of power, is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acce∣perat, he betrayes the individuall, and inseparable right of holy Church. For her censures shee may in∣flict upon her delinquent children without asking leave. Christ is her 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for that, he is her war∣rant and security. The other is beg'd, or borrow'd, none of her owne, nor of a fit edge to be us 'd in her abscissions, and coërcions.* 1.505 I end this considera∣tion with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires of the Church, and let him dispense them velut Deo con∣templante as in the sight of God, to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocesse.

The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge? And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire, and leave it under that repre∣sentation.

Presbyters, and Deacons, and inferiour Clerks, and

the Laity are already involved in the precedent Ca∣nons; No man there, was exempted of whose soule any Bishop had charge. And all Christs sheepe heare his voice, and the call of his sheap-heard-Mi∣nisters. * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bi∣shops of the Province were assembled by the com∣mand of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne, the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop,* 1.506 in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne, that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him, viz: in matters of spirituall im∣port. * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ, who is a King, and a Priest, and a Prophet, Christi∣an Kings are Christi Domini, and Vicars in his Re∣gall power, but Bishops in his Sacerdotall, and Pro∣pheticall. * So that the King hath a Supreme Re∣gall power in causes of the Church, ever since his Kingdome became Christian, and it consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment, and cure of soules, and in these also, all the externall compulso∣ry and jurisdiction in his owne. For when his Sub∣jects became Christian Subjects, himselfe also upon the same termes becomes a Christian Ruler, and in both capacities he is to rule, viz: both as Subjects, and as Christian Subjects, except only in the pre∣cise issues of Sacerdotall authority. And therefore

the Kingdome, and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall capacities. For superio∣rity is usually expressed in three words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Excellency, Impery, and Power. The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery; The Bishop hath an Excellency, viz. of Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King; but in Power, both King, and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity; the King in potentiâ gladii, the Bi∣shop in potestate clavium. The Sword, and the Keyes are the emblems of their distinct power. Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Cle∣ment translated by Ruffinus, Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetà gloriosius, Pontifice clarius, Rege sublimius? King, and Priest, and Prophet, are in their severall excellencies, the Highest powers un∣der heaven. *** In this sense it is easy to under∣stand those expressions often used in Antiquity, which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives; were not both the piety, and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience.* 1.507 And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr, and disciple of the Apostles: Diaconi, & reliquus Cle∣rus, unà cum populo Vniverso, Militibus, Princi∣pibus, & Caesare, ipsi Episcopo pareant. Let the Dea∣cons and all the Clergy, and all the people, the Souldi∣ers, the Princes, and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop.* 1.508 This is it, which S. Ambrose said; Sublimitas Epis∣copalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati, e∣rit

inferius &c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine, that most blessed Prince, De∣us vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis de∣dit, de nobis quo{que} judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judi∣cari, [viz. saecularibus,* 1.509 and in causis simplicis reli∣gionis.] So that good Emperour in his oration to the Nicene Fathers.

It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Chur∣ches in his Diocesse to the Arians. His answer was, that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour, but Chur∣ches to the Bishop; and so they did, by all the lawes of Christendome. The like was in the case of S. A∣thanasius, and Constantius the Emperour, exactly the same per omnia, as it is related by Ruffinus.* 1.510 * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Empe∣rour, to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli, in his Church at Millain, showes that then the powers were so distinct, that they made no intrenchment upon each other. * It was no greater power, but a more considerable act, and higher exercise, the for∣bidding the communion to Theodosius,* 1.511 till he had by repentance, washed out the bloud that stuck up∣on him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica. It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Em∣perour, and resolution and authority in the Bishop. But he was not the first that did it; For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod, and the severity of the Bishop.* 1.512 De hoc traditum est nobis,

quod Christianus fuerit, & in die Paschae, i.e. in ip∣sis vigiliis cùm interesse voluërit, & communicare mysteriis, ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum, nisi confiteretur peccata, & inter poenitentes staret, nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam, culpas que de eo ferebantur plurimae, deluisset. The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till hee had wash't away his sinnes by repentance. And the Emperour did so. Fe∣runt 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 dispen∣sation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ec∣clesiasticall Ministery.* 1.513 It was S. Chrysostomes com∣mand to his Presbyters, to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion.

If he be a Captaine, a Consull, or a Crowned King that cometh unwor∣thily, forbid him and keep him off, thy power is greater then his. If thou darest not remove him, tell it mee, I will not suffer it, &c.

And had there never been more errour in the managing Church-censures, then in the foregoing instances, the Church might have exercised censures, and all the parts of power that Christ gave her, without either scandall or danger to her selfe, or her penitents. But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put, a great proportion of secular inconveniences, and humane interest, when excommunications, as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan, so now, shall be de∣liverings

over to a forraine enemy, or the peoples rage; as then, to be buffeted, so now to be deposed, or disinterest in the allegeance of subjects; in these cases, excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized, and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution, but to an end of private designes, and rebellious interest, Bishops have no power of such censures, not is it lawfull to inflict thē, things remaining in that consistence, and capacity. And thus is that famous saying to be un∣derstood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's,* 1.514 but is indeed found in the Ordinary Glosse upon Matth. 13. Princeps & multitudo non est excom∣municanda. A Prince or a Common wealth are not to be excommunicate.

Thus I have given a short account of the Per∣sons, and causes of which Bishops according to Ca∣tholick practice did, and might take cognisance. This use only I make of it. Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of soules, such a power, quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, yet it hath its limits, and a proper cognisance, viz. things spirituall, and the emergencies, and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo, and superadded, as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Common-wealth; And this I the rather noted, to show how those men would mend themselves that cry downe the tyranny (as they list to call it) of Episcopacy, and yet call for the Presbytery. *** For the Presbytery does challenge

cognisance of all causes whatsoever, which are either sinnes directly, or by reduction.* 1.515 * [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 pecca∣tum,] saith Snecanus, to which if we adde this con∣sideration, that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of adamnable sinne, there is nothing in the world, good or bad, vitious or su∣spitious; scandalous, or criminall; true, or ima∣ginary; reall actions, or personall, in all which, and in all contestations, and complaints one party is de∣linquent, either by false accusation, or reall injury; but they comprehend in their vast gripe, and then they have power to nullify all Courts, and judicato∣ries, besides their owne: and being, for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution, there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory, no appeale from them, but they shall heare, and determine with finall resolution, and it will be sinne, and therefore punishable, to complaine of injustice and illegality. * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy, and the Modesty of their severall demands, and the reasonablenesse, and di∣vinity of each vindication examined, I suppose, were there nothing but Prudentiall motives to be put into ballance to weigh downe this Question, the cause would soone be determin'd, and the little fin∣ger of Presbytery, not only in it's exemplary, and tryed practises, but in its dogmaticall pretensions,

is heavier then the loynes, nay then the whole body of Episcopacy; but it seldome happens otherwise, but that they who usurpe a power, prove tyrants in the execution, whereas the issues of a lawfull pow∣er are faire and moderate.

BUT I must proceed to the more particular in∣stances of Episcopall Iurisdiction.* 1.516 The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sa∣craments was in the Bishop by prime authority, and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation, inso∣much that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop. They had power and capacity by their order to Preach, to Minister, to Offer, to Reconcile, and to Baptize. They were indeed acts of order, but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts, without license from the Bishop, that is an act or issue of jurisdiction, and shewes the superio∣rity of the Bishop over his Presbyters, by the pra∣ctice of Christendome.

S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question, and here also he brings in succour.* 1.517 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is not lawfull without the Bishop (viz. without his leave) either to baptize, or to offer Sacrifice, or to make oblation, or to keep feasts of charity: and a little before; speaking of the B. Eucharist, and its mini∣stration, and having premised a generall interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But let that Eucharist (saith he) be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop, or under him, to whom the Bishop shall permit. ***

* I doe not here dispute the matter of right, and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure doe any offices without Episcopall licence, but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church? This is sufficient to show, to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consi∣stence will drive; and if I mistake not, it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too. For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant devotion, in the new spring of Christianity, in the times of persecution, in all the publike disadvantages of state and fortune, when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience, that then they should have thoughts ambitious, incroaching, of usurpati∣on and advantages, of purpose to devest their Bre∣thren of an authority intrusted them by Christ, and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feele a stronger blast of persecution, and was not, as since it hath been, attested with secular assistance, and faire argu∣ments of honour, but was only in a meere spirituall estimate, and ten thousand reall disadvantages. This will not be suppos'd either of wise or holy men. But however. Valeat quantum val••••e potest. The que∣stion is now of matter of fact, and if the Church of Martyrs, and the Church of Saints, and Doctors,

and Confessors now regnant in heaven, be faire pre∣cedents for practices of Christianity, we build upon a rock, though we had digg'd no deeper then this foundation of Catholick practise.

Upon the hopes of these advantages,* 1.518 I proceed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions a∣part, or erect an altar (viz. without the Bishops li∣cense) let him be deposed; clearely intimating that potestas faciendi concionem, the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies, for preaching or o∣ther offices is derived from the Bishop; and there∣fore the Canon adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Coun∣cell of Antioch,* 1.519 and in the Councell of Chalcedon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All the most Reverend Bi∣shops cryed out, this is a righteous law, this is the Ca∣non of the holy Fathers. [This] viz. The Canon Apostolicall now cited.* 1.520 * Tertullian is something more particular, and instances in Baptisme. Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episco∣pus. Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est; alioquin etiam Laicis jus est. The place is of great consideration, and carries in it its own objection and its answer.

The Bishop hath the right of giving baptisme. Then after him,

Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the autho∣rity of the Bishop. (So farre the testimony is clear) and this is for the honour of the Church.

* But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution, and neither by Divine nor Apostolicall ordinance? No indeed. It does not. For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter ho∣norem Ecclesia; and no harme done. For it is ho∣nourable for the Church, that her Ministrations should be most ordinate, and so they are when they descend from the superior to the subordinate. But the next words doe of themselves make answer, [Otherwise lay-men have right to baptize] That is, without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can doe it as much as Presbyters and Deacons. For indeed bap∣tisme conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to bee repeated, but yet they ought not to administer it, so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops li∣cense: so saies Tertullian, let him answer it. Only the difference is this, Lay-men cannot jure ordinario re∣ceive a leave or commission to make it lawfull in them to baptize any; Presbyters and Deacons may, for their order is a capacity or possibility. ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptisme,* 1.521 Tertullian af∣firmes the same of the venerable Eucharist. Eucha∣ristiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quàm Prae∣sidentium sumimus. The former place will expound this, if there be any scruple in [Praesidentium] for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops. I suppose he means [without Episcopall license.] whatsoever

his meaning is, these are his words.

The Councell of Gangra,* 1.522 forbidding conventi∣cles, expresses it with this intimation of Episcopall authority.

If any man shall make assemblies pri∣vately, & out of the Church, so despising the Chutch, or shall doe any Church-offices

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the pre∣sence of a Priest by THE DECREE OF A BISHOP, let him be anathema. The Priest is not to be assist∣ant at any meeting for private offices without the Bi∣shops license. If they will celebrate Synaxes private∣ly, it must be by a Priest, and he must be there by leave of the Bishop, & then the assembly is lawfull. * And this thing was so knowne, that the Fathers of the second Councell of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisy in Priests to doe their offices without a license from the Bishop.* 1.523 Numidiu•• Episcopus Massi∣lytanus dixit, In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simplicitèr, aut dissimulantes audactèr, praesente, & inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domi∣cilijs agunt agenda, quod disciplinae incongruum cog∣noscit esse Sanctitas vestra. In some places there are Priests that in private houses doe offices (houseling of people is the office meant, communicating them at home) without the consent or leave of the Bishop, being either simply ignorant, or boldly dissembling; Implying, that they could not else but know their duties to be, to procure Episcopall license for their ministrations. Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est. Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco v••luërit celebrare, ipse honroi suo con∣trarius

existit.

All the Bishops said, if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the myste∣ries, be the place what it will be, he is an Enemy to the Bishops dignity.

After this in time, but before in authority is the great Councell of Chalcedon.* 1.524 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers, remaine under the power of the Bishops of the City. So that they are for their of∣fices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop. The Canon instances particularly to Priests offici∣ating in Monasteries and Hospitalls, but extends it selfe to an indefinite expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They must not dissent or dif∣fer from their Bishop. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c: All they that trans∣gresse this Constitution in ANY WAY, not submitting to their Bishop, let them be punish'd canonically. So that now these generall expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be Under∣stood according to the exigence of the matter, to wit, the Ministeries of the Clergy in their severall offices, the Canon extends it's prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority.

But it was more clearely and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church, we have good wit∣nesse for it; S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my author.* 1.525 Sed ne{que} coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire, nec praesente Antistite infan∣tem tingere, aut signare, nec poenitentem sine praecep∣tione

Episcopi sui reconciliare, nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corpor is & Sanguinis Christi conficere, nec eo coràm posito populum docere, vel be∣nedicere &c. It is not lawfull for the Presbyters to en∣ter into the baptistery, nor to baptize any Catechu∣mens, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud in the presencè of the Bishop without his command. From this place of S. Leo, if it be set in conjunction with the precedent, we have faire evi∣dence of this whole particular. It is not lawfull to doe any offices without the Bishops leave; So S. Ignatius, so the Canons of the Apostles, so Tertullian, so the Councells of Antioch and Chalcedon. It is not lawfull to doe any offices in the Bishops presence without leave, so S. Leo. The Councell of Carthage joynes them both together, neither in his presence, nor without his leave in any place.

Now against this practice of the Church, if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to doe by Gratian,* 1.526 Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo, dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters doe what they are com∣manded to doe by God, let him tell us if any man be greater then Christ, viz: whose command it is, that Presbyters should preach. Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave? might not Pres∣byters doe their duty without a license? This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly suf∣ficient to answer. * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole diocesse, he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge, he it is

who is appointed by peculiar designation to feede the flock, so the Canon of the1 1.527 Apostles, so2 1.528 Ig∣natius, so the Councell of3 1.529 Antioch, so every where; The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis, but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocesse is in the Bishop, and without the Bishop's admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum, although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of prea∣ching and administring Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt. And therefore it is, that a Presbyter may not doe these acts without the Bishops leave, because they are actions of relati∣on, and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred, or some particular person; for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did, nor communicate alone, the word is destructive of the thing, nor baptize un∣lesse he have a Chrysome Child, or a Catechumen; So that all of the Diocesse being the Bishop's charge, the Bishop must either authorize the Priest, or the Priest must not meddle, least he be (what S. Peter blam'd) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Bishop in anothers Diocesse: Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing, of consecrating &c. For these he had by his oxdination, but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these rela∣tive actions, and did quoad hoc take him in partem sollicitudinis and concredit some part of his diocesse to his administration cum curâ animarum.

But then on the other side because the whole cure

of the Diocesse is in the Bishop, he cannot exonerate himselfe of it, for it is a burden of Christs impo∣sing, or it is not imposed at all, therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not devest him of his own power, or any part of it, nor yet ease him of his care, but that as he must still 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, visit and see to his Diocesse, so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocesse, and this appears in these places now quoted; insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place, there the Vica∣ria of the Presbyters did cease. In praesentiâ Majo∣ris cessat potest as minoris. And, though because the Bishop could not doe all the Minor and daily offi∣ces of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocesse, therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate, himselfe looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a generall supravision; yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Di∣ocesse, there he being presen•• might doe any office, because it was in his own charge, which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himselfe of it; And therefore praesente Episcopo (saith the Councell of Carthage, and S. Leo) if the Bishop be present, the Presbyter without leave might not of∣ficiate; For he had no subjects of his owne, but by trust and delegation, and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence, who could not simul omnibus interesse, but then, where he was pre∣sent, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorpt in the greater, and so without leave might not be exercised; like

the starres which in the noon day have their own naturall light, as much as in the night, but appeare not, shine not in the presence of the Sunne.

This perhaps will seem uncouth to those Presby∣ters, who (as the Councell of Carthage's expressi∣on is) are contr••rii honort Episcopali; but yet if we keep our selves in our own forme, where God hath placed us, and where wee were in the Primitive Church, wee shall find all this to be sooth, and full of order. For Consider. The elder the prohibition was, the more absolute & indefinite it runs. [With∣out the Bishop it is not lawfull to baptize, to conse∣crate] &c. So Ignatius. The prohibition is with∣out limit. But in descent of the Church it runnes, [praesente Episcopo] the Bishop being present they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same originall, to wit, the Vni∣versality of the Bishops Iurisdiction, but the reason of the difference of expression is this. At first Pres∣byters were in Citties with the Bishop, and no pari∣shes at all concredited to them. The Bishops lived in Citties, the Presbyters preach'd and offer'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them. Here they had no ordinary charge, and there∣fore the first prohibitions runne indefinitely, they must not doe any Clericall offices sine Episcopo, un∣lesse the Bishop sends them. But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct, and the Presbyters fix't upon ordinary charges, then it was only, prae∣sente Episcopo, if the Bishop was present, they might not officiate without leave. For in his absence they

might doe it, I doe not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or tem∣porary residence; as it is to this day, when the Bi∣shop 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 tempora∣ry missions, then they were to have leave, but this li∣cense was also temporary; but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum, and that was done in subsidium Muneres Episcopalis, because it was that part of the Bishops charge, which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices, and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter, but if he was present, a new leave was necessary, be∣cause as the power alwaies was in the Bishop, so now the execution also did returne to him when he was there in person, himselfe if he listed, might offi∣ciate.

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 be∣ing a Greek borne, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for publike orations, eidem Presbytero (viz. to Austin) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi, ac frequentis∣simè tractandi contra. USUM quidem, & CONSUE∣TUDINEM Africanarum Ecclesiarum. He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter, to preach in the Church,

even while himselfe was present, indeed against the VSE and CUSTOME of the African Churches. And for this act of his he suffered soundly in his report. * For the case was thus. In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy, the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter, that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all, at least in the Mother Church, and in the Bishops presence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith Socrates.)* 1.530 Thence came this Custome in the African Churches. But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able, and himselfe for want of Latin so unfit, he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the Custome of the African Churches. But he addes this reason for his excuse too; it was not indeed the custome of A∣frica, but it was of the Orientall Churches. For so Possidonius proceeds, sed & ille vir venerabilis, ac providus, in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sci∣ens, in the Levant it was usuall for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach, dummodò factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minimè posse cernebat, which determines us fully in the businesse. For this leave to doe offices was but there to be gi∣ven where the Bishop himselfe could not fulfill the offices, which showes the Presbyters in their seve∣rall charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixt residence, to be but Delegates, and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Sollicitudinis, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Dio∣cesse.

Against this it is objected out of S. Hierome,* 1.531 and it is recorded by Gratian, Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis, at{que} adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Behold, I say that Presby∣ters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop. So Gratian quotes it indeed, but S. Hierome saies the expresse contrary, unlesse we all have false co∣pies. For in S. Hierome it is not [Ecce ego dico] but [Nec ego dico.] He does not say it is lawfull for Pres∣byters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop. In∣deed S. Hierome is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Nar∣bona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach, nor to blesse &c. This, perhaps it was not well done, but this makes not against the for∣mer discourse; for though it may be fit for the Bi∣shop to give leave, the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplicati∣on of Christians, and Parishes, yet it is cleare that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave, for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes a∣gainst Rusticus, to show he did amisse, because he would not give his Presbyters license. * And this he also reprehends in his epistle ad Nepotianum, Pes∣simae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui. That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop, that was an ill custome, to wit, as things then stood, and it was mended presently after, for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops pre∣sence, but it was by license from their Ordinary. For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius

before mentioned, Posteà currente & volante hujus∣modi famâ, bono praecedente exemplo, ACCEPTA AB EPISCOPIS POTESTATE Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis, populis tractare caeperunt verbum Dei. By occasion of this precedent it came to passe, that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bi∣shops presence, having first obtain'd faculty from the Bishop so to doe. And a little after it became a custome from a generall faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Councell of Vase.* 1.532 Now if this evidence of Church practise be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome, let him then first be reconciled to himselfe, and then we are sure to be help'd. For in his dialogue against the Luci∣ferians, his words are these, Cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes. Inde venit ut sine E∣piscopi missione ne{que} Presbyter, ne{que} Diaconus jus ha∣beant baptizandi. Because the Bishop hath an emi∣nent power, and this power is necessary, thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave.

** This whole discourse showes clearely not on∣ly the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge.* 1.533

** DIvers other acts there are to attest the supe∣riority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons, as, that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing, and as

at first they were laid at the Apostles feet, so after∣wards, at the Bishops. So it is in the 41. Canon of the Apostles, so it is in the Councell of Gangra, and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation, without expresse delegation from the Bishop, as appears in the seventh and eight Canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Councell. * And therefore when in successe of time, some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop; of this the third Councell of Toledo complains,* 1.534 and makes re∣medy, commanding, ut omnia SECUNDUM CON∣STITUTIONEM ANTIQUAM, ad Episcopi ordinatio∣nem & potestatem pertineant. The same is reniewed in the fourth Councell of Toledo.* 1.535 Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt, nullam se potestatem habere, SED IUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA, sicut Ecclesiam, ita & dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere. These Councells I produce not as Iudges, but as witnes∣ses in the businesse, for they give concurrent testi∣mony that as the Church it selfe, so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons. For so the third Councell of Tole∣do calls it, antiquam Constitutionem, and it selfe is al∣most 1100. years old, so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense.* 1.536 For so it was deter∣min'd in the great Councell of Chalcedon, com∣manding that the goods of the Church should be

dispensed by a Clergy steward,* 1.537 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bi∣shop.

ADde to this, that without the Bishop's dimisso∣ry letters Presbyters might not goe to another Diocesse.* 1.538 So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, under paine of suspension or depositi∣on, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the censure; and that especially, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if he would not returne when his Bishop calls him. The same is renewed in the Councell of Antioch, cap. 3. and in the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo, cap. 17. the censure there is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fix•• him∣selfe in the Diocesse of another Bishop. But with li∣cense of his Bishop, he may. Sacerdotes, vel alii Cle∣rici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare.* 1.539 But this is frequently re∣newed in many other Synodall decrees, these may suffice for this instance.

* But this not leaving the Diocesse is not only meant of promotion in another Church, but Cler∣gy men might not travaile from Citty to Citty, without the Bishops license; which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico, but ex∣tends it almost to a despotick; But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of du∣ty, and Clericall subordination to their Bishop.* 1.540 The Councell of La••dicea commands a Priest, or Cler∣gy

man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to tra∣vail without Canonicall, or dimissory letters. And who are to grant these letters, is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition,* 1.541 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Priest or a Clerke must not travaile without the command of his Bishop; and this prohibition is inser∣ted into the body of the Law, de consecrat. dist 5. can. non oportet, which puts in the clause of [Ne{que} etiam Laicum,] but this was beyond the Councell, The same is in the Councell ofa 1.542 Agatho. The Councell ofb 1.543 Venice adds a cēsure, that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went, without letters of license from their Bishop. The same penalty is inflicted by the Councell of Epaunum,* 1.544 Presbytero, vel Diaco∣no sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communio∣nem nullus impendat. The first Councell of Tou∣rayne in France, and the third Councell of Orleans attest the selfe same power in the Bishop, and duty in all his Clergy.

BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a com∣plete jurisdiction,* 1.545 unlesse it be also remunera∣tive, & [the Princes of the Nations are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Benefactors] for it is but halfe a tye to indeare obe∣dience, when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit, that which cannot profit. And therefore the primitive Church, to make the Episcopall juris∣diction up intire, gave power to the Bishop to pre∣sent the Clerks of his Diocesse to the higher Orders

and neerer degrees of approximation to himselfe, and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted. Item placuit ut quicun{que} Clerici vel Diaconi pro ne∣cessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPIS∣COPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE, nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere nolue∣runt.* 1.546 So it is decreed in the African Code, They that will not by their by Bishop be promoted to a Greater ho∣nour in the Church, must not enjoy what they have al∣ready.

But it is a question of great consideration, and worth a strict inquiry, in whom the right and pow∣er of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church: for the right and the power did not al∣waies goe together, and also severall Orders had severall manner of election; Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone, the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops, or by their Chapter; And lastly, because of late, strong outcries are made up∣on severall pretensions, amongst which the people make the biggest noise, though of all, their title to election of Clerks be most empty, therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds.

1. In the Acts of the Apostles, which are most certainely the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that [Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every Church] and [they passed thorough Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, appointing them Elders. * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and he saies of

himselfe and Titus, [For this cause I SENT thee to Crete, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that thou shoul∣dest oppoint Presbyters, or Bishops (be they which they will) in every City]. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sig∣nifies that the whole action was his. For that he or∣dain'd them no man questions, but he also AP∣POINTED THEM,* 1.547 and that was, saith S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I commanded thee. It was therefore an Apostolicall ordinance, that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS. Let there be halfe so much showne for the people, and I will also indea∣vour to promote their interest. **** There is onely one pretence of a popular election in Scrip∣ture; It is of the seven that were set over the wid∣dowes. * But first, this was no part of the hierar∣chy: This was no cure of soules: This was no di∣vine institution: It was in the dispensation of mo∣nyes: it was by command of the Apostles the ele∣ction was made, and they might recede from their owne right: it was to satisfye the multitude: it was to avoid scandall, which in the dispensation of mo∣neyes might easily arise: it was in a temporary of∣fice: it was with such limitations, and conditions as the Apostles prescrib'd them: it was out of the num∣ber of the 70 that the election was made, if we may beleive S. Epiphanus, so that they were Presbyters before this choice: and lastly, it was onely a Nomi∣nation of seven Men, the determination of the bui∣sinesse, and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles, and indeed the whole power [Whom WE MAY APPOINT over this businesse] & after all this,

there can be no hurt done by the objection, especi∣ally since clearely and indubiously the election of Bishops, and Presbyters was in the Apostles owne persons (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Ignatius of Evodias; Evodias was first APPOINTED to be your Governour, or Bi∣shop,* 1.548 by the APOSTLES) and themselves did com∣mitt it to others that were Bishops, as in the instan∣ces before reckoned. Thus the case stood in Scrip∣ture.

2. In the practice of the Church it went accor∣ding to the same law, and practice Apostolicall. The People did not, might not choose the Ministers of holy Church.* 1.549 So the Councell of Laodicea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The people must not choose those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood. The pro∣hibition extends to their Non-election of all the Su∣periour Clergy, Bishops and Presbyters. But who then must elect them? The Councell of Nice deter∣mines that, for in 16 and 17 Canons the Councell forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made, but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordayned, which clearely reserves to the Bishop the power of retayning, or promoting all his Clergy.

* 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops a∣lone, (as I have already prooved.) Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christen∣dome, that no Presbyter might be ordain'd sine titulo without a particular charge, which was al∣waies custome, and at last grew to be a law in the

Councell of Chalcedon, and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the onely chooser; for then to or∣daine a Presbyter was also to give him a charge; and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inhe∣ritance, but part of the Bishops cure, for he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the care of the Churches in all the Diocesse; as I have already showne. And therefore when S. Ierome, according to the cu∣stome of Christendome,* 1.550 had specified some parti∣cular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bi∣shops, as how himselfe was made Priest by Paulinus, and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus,* 1.551 Gaudeat Epis∣copus judicio suo, cùm tales Christo elegerit Sacerdo∣tes, let the Bishop rejoyce in his owne act, having cho∣sen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ.

Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dis∣pensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop.* 1.552 Haec spectet Sacerdos, & quod cui{que} 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,* 1.553 how being an Ari∣an, adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens, licèt turpem habentes vitam, ad Presbyteratûs tamen ordinem, & Diaconatûs evexit. Eos autem qui Vniversis virtu∣tibus ornabantur, & Apostolica dogmata defendebant, abs{que} honore deseruit. He advanc'd his owne faction, but would not promote any man that was Catho∣like and pious. So he did. The power therefore of Clericall promotion was in his owne hands. This thing is evident and notorious; And there is scarce

any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters, or people choosing any Priest, but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples hast snatch'd, and car∣ried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordayne him Priest. This indeed is true, that the te∣stimony of the people, for the life of them that were to be ordayn'd was by S. Cyprian ordinarily requi∣red; In ordinandis Clericis (Fratres Charissimi) so∣lemus vos ante consulere,* 1.554 & mores, ac merita singulo∣rum communi consilio ponderare. It was his custome to advise with his people concerning the publike fame of Clerks to be ordayn'd; It was usuall (I say) with him, but not perpetuall, for it was other∣wise in the case of Celerinus, and divers others, as I shewed elsewhere.

4. In election of Bishops (though not of Priests) the Clergy and the people had a greater actuall in∣terest, and did often intervene with their silent con∣senting suffrages, or publike acclamations. But first; This was not necessary. It was otherwise among the Apostles, and in the case of Timothy, of Titus, of S. Iames, of S. Marke, and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the severall chayres. 2^ly. This was not by law, or right, but in fact only. It was a∣gainst the Canon of the Laodicean Councell, and the 31^th Canon of the Apostles, which under paine of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promo∣ted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power.

Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pre∣tended.* 1.555 Quando ipsa [plebs] maximè habeat potesta∣tem

vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos re∣cusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authori∣tate descendere &c. Thus he is usually cited. The people have power to choose, or to refuse their Bishops, and this comes to them from Divine authority. No such matter. The following words expound him better, [Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authori∣tate descendere, ut Sacerdos PLEBE PRAESENTE sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus, at{que} idoneus publi∣co judicio ac testimonio comprobetur: that the Bishop is chosen publikely, in the presence of the people, and he only be thought fit who is approved by publike judge∣ment, and testimony; or as S. Paul's phrase is [he must have a good report of all men] that is indeed a divine institution, and that to this purpose, and for the publike attestation of the act of election and or∣dination the peoples presence was required, appeares clearely by S. Cyprian's discourse in this Epistle. For what is the divine authority that he mentions? It is only the example of Moses whom God com∣manded to take the Sonne of Eleazer and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagogâ, before all the congregation. The people chose not, God chose Eleazar, and Moses consecrated him, and the people stood, and look'd on; that's all that this argu∣ment can supply. * Iust thus Bishops are, and ever were ordayn'd, non nisi sub populi assistentis conscien∣tiâ, in the sight of the people standing by; but to what end? Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimi∣na, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. All this while the election is not in the people, nothing but the

publike testimony, and examination, for so it fol∣lowes, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omni∣um suffragio, & judicio fuerit examinata.

** But S. Cyprian hath two more proof's whence we may learne either the sense, or the truth of his as∣sertion. The one is of the Apostles ordayning the se∣ven Deacons (but this we have already examin'd,) the other of S. Peter choosing S. Matthias into the Apostolate; it was indeed done in the presence of the people. * But here it is considerable that at this sur∣rogation of S. Matthias the Number of the persons present was but 120, of which eleven were Apo∣stles, and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters, they make up 83, and then there remaines but 37 of the Laity, of which many were women, which I know not yet whether any man would admitt to the ele∣ction of an Apostle, and whether they doe or doe not, the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had beene to be carried by plurality of voices; so that let the worst come that is imagina∣ble, the whole businesse 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 disagree∣ing interest.* 2. Let this discourse be of what va∣lidity it will, yet all this whole businesse was mira∣culous, and extraordinary; For though the Apostles nam'd two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation. And yet for all this, it was lawfull for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots. An non licebatipsi [Petro] e∣ligere? licebat, & quidem maximè; verùm id non

facit ••e cui videretur gratificari. Quanquam alio∣qui non erat particeps Spiritûs. For all, he had not as yet received the holy Ghost, yet he had power himselfe to have completed the election.* 1.556 So S. Chrysostome.

So that now, if S. Cyprian meanes more then the presence of the people for suffrage of publike testi∣mony, & extends it to a suffrage of formall choice, his proofes of the divine authority are invalid, there is no such thing can be deduc'd from thence, and then this is his complying so much with the people (which hath beene the fault of many a good man) may be reckon'd together with his rebaptization. But truth is, he meanes no more then suffrage of testimony, viz: That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame, and appro∣ved of before God and all the people, and this is all the share they have in their election. * And so in∣deed himselfe summes up the whole businesse and tells us of another jus Divinum too. [Propter quod diligentèr de traditione Divinâ, & Apostolicâ obser∣vatione, observandum est & tenendum, quod apud nos quo{que}, & ferè apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi qui{que} conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur pl••be praesente que singuloram vitam plenissimè no∣vit.

It is most diligently to be observed, for there is a Divine tradition, and an Apostolicall ordinance for it, and it is us'd 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 formall election, the people to give their judgement of approbation in this particular, and so much as concern'd 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 choo∣sing a Collegue, 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 cleare∣ly in the Bishops, and that by Divine tradition, and Apostolicall observation saith S. Cyprian; And thus it was in all Churches almost.

In Africa this was,* 1.557 and so it continued till after S. Austins time, particularly in the choice of Eradi∣us his successor. It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostome tels us. It was so in Spaine, as S.† 1.558 Isi∣dore tels us; and in many other places, that the peo∣ple should be present, and give acclamation, and tu∣multuary approbation; but to the formall 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 re∣spects to be sweetned, to make them with easier ap∣petite 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 noyse cry him up in his ordination, ne plebs invita Episcopum non op∣tatum,

aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minùs reli∣giosa quàm convenit, cui non licuerit habere quem vo∣luit, (for so S. Leo expresses the cause) yet the for∣mality, * 1.559 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 Councell,* 1.560 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the BISHOPS of the province, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It must be confirm'd, and established by the METRO∣POLITAN. No Presbyters here all this while, no people. * But the exercise of this power is more clearely seen in the Acts of some Councells, where the Fathers degraded some Bishops, and themselves appointed others in their Roomes. * The Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople deposed Mar∣cellus. In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt. They sent Basilius Bishop in his roome,* 1.561 saith Sozo∣men. * Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reveren∣dissimorum Episcoporū, & consuetâ lege Episcopus E∣phesiorum Metropolis est constitutus, (said the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedō.* 1.562) Let Bassianus show that he was made BISHOP OF EPHESUS BY A SYNOD OF BISHOPS, and according to the accustomed Law. The Law I shewed before, even the Nicene Canon. The fathers of which Councell sent a Synodall Epi∣stle 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 pow∣er,

* 1.563 nullam verò omnimodò habere potestatem, ne{que} ELIGENDI, NEQUE ORDINANDI: &c. Neither suffering him to choose nor to ordaine Clerks. It seems then that was part of the Episcopall office in ordinary, placit••s sibi eligere, as the Epistle expres∣ses it in the sequell, to choose whom they listed. But the Councell deposed Melitius, and sent Alexander their Bishop, and Patriarch to rule the Church a∣gaine. ** And particularly to come home to the ••ase of the present question, when Auxentius Bi∣shop of Millaine was dead, and the Bishops of the Province; and the Clergy of the Church, and the people of the Citty, were assembled at the choosing of another,* 1.564 the Emperour makes a speech to the Bishops only, that they should be carefull in their choyce. 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 faire complyings to be used so long as they are pious, catholick, and obedient, yet both the right of electing, and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops, the peoples interest did not arrive to one halfe of this.

6. There are in Antiquity diverse precedents of Bishops, who chose their own successors; it will not be imagined the people will choose a Bishop over his head, and proclaime that they were weary of him. In those daies they had more piety. * Age∣lius did so, he chose Sisinnius, and that it may ap∣peare it was without the people, they came about him, and intreated him to choose Marcian, to

whom they had been beholding in the time of Va∣lens the Emperour; he complyed with them, and appointed Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen, to succeed Marcian.* 1.565 Thus did Valerius choose his successor, S. Austin; for though the people nam'd him for their Priest, and carried him to Valerius to take Orders, yet Va∣lerius chose him Bishop. And this was usuall; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as▪ Epiphanius expresses this case,) it was ordinary to doe so in many Churches.

7. The manner of election in many Churches was various, for although indeed the Church had com∣manded it, and given power to the Bishops to make the election, yet in some times and in some Chur∣ches the Presbyters, or the Chapter, chose one out of themselves. S. Hierome saies they alwaies did so in Alexandria, from S. Markes time to Heraclas and Dionysius.* 1.566 * S. Ambrose saies that at the first, the Bishop was not, by a formall new election pro∣moted, but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat. As one dyed so the next senior did succeed him. In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes.

8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choyce of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day, and there∣fore to take it from the Clergy, in whom it alwaies was by permission of Princes, and to interest the people in it, is to recede à traditionibus Majorum, from the religion of our forefathers, and to INNO∣VATE in a high proportion.

9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage

(by way of testimony, I meane, and approbation) did concurre with the Synod of Bishops▪ in the choyce of a Bishop, the people at last according to their usuall guise grew hot, angry, and tumultuous, and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to Name a Bishop of their own sect; and to disgrace one another by publike scandall, and contestation, and often grew up to Sedition, and Murder; and therefore although they were never admitted, (un∣lesse where themselves usurped) farther then I have declared, yet even this was taken from them, espe∣cially, since in tumultuary assemblies, they were apt to carry all before them, they knew not how to di∣stinguish between power, and right, they had not well learn'd to take deniall, but began to obtrude whom they listed, to swell higher like a torrent when they were check'd; and the soleship of electi∣on, which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bi∣shops, they would have asserted wholly to them∣selves both in right, and execution.

* I end this with the annotation of Zonaras up∣on the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Councell. Po∣puli suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur (understand him in the senses above explicated) Sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent, hinc factum est ut Episco∣porum Vniuscujus{que} provinciae authoritate eligi Epis∣copum quem{que} oportere decreverint Patres: of old time Bishops were chosen, not without the suffrage of the people (for they concurred by way of testimo∣ny and acclamation) but when this occasion'd many seditions and tumults, the Fathers decreed that a Bi∣shop

should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province. And he addes that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slaine, and that sixe hun∣dred examples more of that nature were produ∣cible.

Truth is, the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone, and though the Kindred of our Blessed Saviour were admitted to the choyce of Simeon Cleophae, the Successor of S. Iames to the Bishoprick of Ierusalem, as Eusebius witnesses;* 1.567 it was propter singularem honorem, an honorary, and extra∣ordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vi∣cinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the foun∣taine of all benison to us; and for that very reason Simeon himselfe was chosen Bishop too. Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam. The rule of the Apostles, and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to choose their Colleagues in that Sacred order. * And then in descent, even before the Nicene Councell the people were forbidden to meddle in election, for they had no authority by Scripture to choose; by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choyce as is now folded up in a peice of paper, even to a testimoniall; and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon, quem cives elegerunt,* 1.568 saith the story out of Sozomen, they chose him alone, (though God took away his life before himselfe would accept of their choyce) and then they behav'd themselves oftentimes with so much in∣solency,

partiality, faction, sedition, cruelty, and Pagan basenesse that they were quite interdicted it, above 1200 yeares agone. * So that they had their little in possession but a little while, and never had any due, and therefore now, their request for it is no petition of right,* 1.569 but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in peices.

But I thinke I need not have troubled my selfe halfe so farre, for they that strive to introduce a po∣pular election, would as faine have Episcopacy out, as popularity of election let in. So that all this of popular election of Bishops, may seeme superfluous. For I consider, that if the peoples power of choo∣sing Bishops be founded upon Gods law, as some men pretend from S. Cyprian (not proving the thing from Gods law, but Gods law from S. Cyprian) then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law: For surely God never gave them power to choose any man into that office which himselfe hath no way instituted. And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election, if the Church will recede from her divine right of Episcopacy. But for all their plundering, and confounding, their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary.

IF we adde to all these foregoing particulars the power of making lawes to be in Bishops,* 1.570 nothing else can be required to the making up of a spirituall Principality. Now as I have shewne that the Bishop of every Diocesse did give lawes to his owne

Church for particulars, so it is evident that the lawes of Provinces and of the Catholike Church, were made by conventions of Bishops without the inter∣vening, or concurrence of Presbyters, or any else for sentence and decision.

The instances of this are just so many as there are Councells. S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary deter∣minations of faith,* 1.571 si judicium Episcoporum est (saith he) quid cum eo commune habet Imperator? It is a judgment to be pass'd BY BISHOPS, (meaning the determination of the article,) and not proper for the Emperour. And when Hosius of Corduba reprov'd him for sitting President in a Councell, Quis enim videns eum IN DECERNENDO PRINCIPEM SE FACERE EPISCOPORUM, non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis? He that sits Pre∣sident, makes himselfe chiefe of the Bishops, &c. inti∣mating Bishops only to preside in Councells, and to make decision. And therefore conventus Episcopo∣rum, and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for Generall, and Provinciall Councells. Bis in ann•• Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur, said the 38^th Ca∣non of the Apostles; and Congregatio Episcopalis the Councell of Sardis is call'd by Theodoret.* 1.572 And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter, ob quam causam (saith Eusebius) conventus Episcoporum,* 1.573 & Concilia per singulas quas{que} provincias convocantur. Where by the way, it is to be observeable, that at first, even provinciall Synods were onely held by Bishops,

and Presbyters had no interest in the decision; how∣ever we have of late sate so neere Bishops in Provin∣ciall assemblies, that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts. But my Lords the Bishops have a concer∣ning interest in this. To them I leave it; And be∣cause the foure generall Councells are the Prece∣dents and chiefe of all the rest, I shall only instance in them for this particular.

1. The title of the Nicene Councell runs thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 te∣stimony in that he makes it to be a mysticall num∣ber;* 1.574 Nam & Abraham trecentos decem & octo duxit ad bellum. . . . De Concilijs id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem & octo Sacerdotes. . . . velut trophaeum extulerunt, ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum, quod eodem numero in Concilijs, fidei habemus oraculum, quo in historiâ, pietatis exemplum. Well! 318 was the Number of the Iudges, the Nicene Fathers, and they were all Bishops, for so is the title of the sub∣scriptions, Subscripserunt trecenti decem & octo EPISCOPI qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt; 13. whereof were Chorepiscopi, but not one Presbyter, save onely that Vitus, and Vincentius subscribed as legates of the Bishop of Rome, but not by their owne authority.

2. The great Councell of Constantinople was

celebrated by 150 Bishops: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That's the title of the Canons. The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in C. P. and that these were all Bishops ap∣peares by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Councell. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops. And of this Councell it was that Socrates speaking, Imperator (saith he) nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium EPISCOPORUM convocat.* 1.575 Here indeed some few Bishops appear'd by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter, and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader, and about some fowre or five more. * This onely, amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus, Auxanon, Helladius, and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters. But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies; They were Bishops, saith the title of the Councell, and the Oration, and the Canons, and Socrates; And least there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presby∣ter Apameae, because before, Iohannes Apameensis subscribed, which seemes to intimate that one of them was the Bishop, and the other but a Presbyter indeed, without a subterfuge of modesty, the titles distinguishes them. For Iohn was Bishop in the Province of Caele Syria, and Auxanon of Apamea in ••isidia.

3. The third was the Councell of Ephesus, Epis∣coporum plurium quàm ducentorum, as is often said

in the acts of the Councell [of above 200 Bishops.] But no Presbyters, for, Cùm Episcopi supra ducen∣tos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt, horum sub∣scriptionibus contenti fuimus. We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odde Bishops, saith the Councell;* 1.576 and Theodosius junior, in his Epistle to the Synod, Illicitum est (saith he) eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus. It is unlawfull for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops, to be in∣terest in Ecclesiasticall assemblies.

4. The last of the foure great conventions of Christendome was, sexcentorum triginta Episcopo∣rum, of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia. But in all these assemblies, no meere Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop, and de∣legation of authority. And therefore when in this Councell some Laicks, and some Monks, and some Clergy-men, not Bishops, would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empresse sent letters to Consularius to repell them by force; si praeter nostram evocatio∣nem, aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur, who come without command of the Em∣presse, or the Bishops permission. Where it is ob∣serveable 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 on∣ly, and condescension;* 1.577 For when Martinus the Ab∣bot was requested to subscribe he answered, Non

suum esse, sed Episcoporum tantùm subscribere, it be∣long'd only to Bishops to subscribe to Councells. For this reason the Fathers themselves often call'd out in the Councell, Mitte foras superfluos, Concilium Episcoporum est.

But I need not more particular arguments, for till the Councell of Basil, the Church never admit∣ted Presbyters as in their own right to voyce in Councells, and that Councell we know savourd too much of the Schismatick, but before this Councell, no example, no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenicall, or Provinciall Synods. Indeed to a Diocesan Synod, viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy, I find 32 Presbyters subscri∣bing. This Synod was neither Oecumenicall nor Provinciall, but meerely the Convocation of a Dio∣cesse. For here was but one Bishop, and some few Abbots, and 32 Presbyters. It was indeed no more then a visitation, or the calling of a Chapter, for of this we receive intimation in the seaventh Canon of that assembly,* 1.578 ut in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent, that was their summons, & in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium: so that here is intimation of a yearely Synod besides the first convention, the greatest of them but Diocesan, and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis, or however not enough to give evidence of a subscrip∣tion of Presbyters to so much as a Provinciall Councell. For the guise of Christendome was al∣waies otherwise, and therefore it was the best argu∣ment that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to ac∣quit

themselves from the suspition of heresy, Ne{que} nos sumus Arii sectatores;* 1.579 Quî nam{que} fieri potest, ut cùm simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus? Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests, but Priests doe from Bishops,* 1.580 Nam vestrum est eos instruere (saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy, and all the Diocesse) eorum est vobis o∣bedire, ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini. And a little after; Audire ergo eum attentiùs oportet, & ab ipso suscicere doctrinam fidei, monita autem vitae à Pres∣byteris inquirere. Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life, but of the Bishop receive positi∣ons and determinations of faith.

Against this if it be objected, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet, That which is of generall concernement, must also be of generall Scrutiny. I an∣swer, it is true, unlesse where God himselfe hath in∣trusted the care of others in a body, as he hath in the Bishops, and will require the soules of his Dio∣cesse at his hand, and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths,* 1.581 and to follow their faith,* 1.582 whom he hath set over us. And therefore the de∣termination of Councells pertains to all,* 1.583 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.* 1.584 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 Ma∣sters absence) and for this reason the Synod of the

Nicene Bishops is called (in Eusebius) conventus or∣bis terrarum,* 1.585 and by S. Austin, consensus totius Ec∣clesiae, not that the whole Church was there present in their severall persons, but was there represented by the Catholike Bishops, and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all, I see no reason but the Ladyes too, may vote in Councells, for I doubt not, but they have soules too.

But however, if this argument were concluding in it selfe, yet it looses its force in England, where the Clergy are bound by Lawes of Parliament, and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to choose neither Procurators to represent us as Cler∣gy, nor Knights of the shire to represent us as Com∣mons. * In conclusion of this I say to the Presby∣ters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-judges, whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Coun∣cell (it was an old hereticall trick.) Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam,* 1.586 audiant cum populo, non ut QUIS QUAM IUDEX resideat, sed unu•• quis{que} de suo af∣fectu 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 there∣fore Councells were alwaies kept in open Chur∣ches, [ubi populus judicat] not for others, but for themselves, not by externall sentence, but internall conviction, so S. Ambrose expounds himselfe in the forecited allegation.

There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Councell of Ierusalem;

where the Apostles, and ELDERS did meet together to DETERMINE of the question of circumcision. For although in the story of celebration of it, we find no man giving sentence but Peter, and Iames; yet in 16. Acts, they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, decrees IUDGED by the A∣postles, and Elders. But first, in this the difficulty is the lesse, because [Presbyter] was a generall word for all that were not of the number of the twelve, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors. And then secondly, it is none at all, because Paul, and Barnabas are signally, and by name reckoned as pre∣sent in the Synod, and one of them Prolocutor, or else both. So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventuall assemblies. 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story, yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church, is certainly the best ex∣positor of such places where there either is any dif∣ficulty, or where any is pretended. And of this, I have already given account.

* I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voycing in Councells. It is a pretty pageant; onely that it is against the Ca∣tholick practice of the Church, against the exigence of Scripture, which bids us require the law at the Mouth of our spirituall Rulers, against the gravity of such assemblies, for it would force them to be tu∣multuous, and at the best, are the worst of Sancti∣ons, as being issues of popularity, and to summe up all, it is no way authoriz'd by this first copy of Christian Councells. The pretence is, in the Syno∣dall

* 1.587 letter written in the name of [the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren] that is, (saies Geta,) The Apostles, and Presbyters, and People. But why not BRETHREN, that is, all the Deacons, and Evange∣lists, and Helpers in Governement, and Ministers of the Churches? There is nothing either in words, or circumstances to contradict this. If it be ask'd who then are meant by Elders, if by [Brethren] S. Luke understands these Church officers? I answer, that here is such variety, that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders, and Brethren, yet here are enough to furnish both with variety, and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the pre∣sent acceptation of the word, nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question, nor authorizing the de∣cretall. For besides the twelve Apostles, there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters, and some∣thing more, as Paul and Barnabas, and Silas; and E∣vangelists, 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 BRE∣THREN what shall we doe. Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men, are called in Scripture, chiefe men among the BRETHREN. But this is too known, to need a contestation.

I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour

in the 8^th Synod. De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus, quàm qui absolutè versamini quid am∣pliùs dicam non habeo, quàm quòd nullo modo vobis li∣cet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere, ne{que} penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae, & universali Synodo adversari. Lay-men (saies the Emperour) must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall, nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church, or Councells Oecumenicall. They must not meddle, for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bi∣shops and their decision. * And now after all this, what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.588 (saith Aristotle▪) They are all evidences of power and authority, to deliberate, to determine, or judge, to make lawes. But to make lawes is the greatest power that is ima∣ginable. The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters, but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops.

LAstly,* 1.589 as if all the acts of jurisdiction, and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop, o∣ver the Presbyters & subordinate Clergy, the Pres∣byters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri, the Bishops Presbyters; as having a propriety in them, and therefore a superiority over them, and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae, so he was of the persons too, a Ru∣ler in propriety. * S. Hilary in the book which

himselfe delivered to Constantine, Ecclesiae adhuc (saith he) per Presbyteros MEOS communionem di∣stribuens, I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters. And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke of his Bishop, to be promoted in another Church, . . . . Deni{que} qui u∣num habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri?* 1.590 (saith Posthumianus.) If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him? Id sequor (saith Aurelius) ut conveniam Episcopum ejus, at{que} ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur. And it was resolved, ut Cleri∣cum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo. No man shall retaine another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is.

* When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries, and entred to purge himselfe,* 1.591 Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Pres∣bytero Suo. He comes in with Timothy HIS Presby∣ter; and, Arsenius, cujus brachium dicebatur excisum, lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii. Arsenius was A∣thanasius HIS Reader. Vbi autem ventum est ad Ru∣mores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Atha∣nasii, &c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests. So Theodoret. Peter,* 1.592 and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters, as himselfe witnesses. Pau∣linianus comes sometimes to visit us (saith S. Hie∣rome to Pammachius) but not as your Clerke,* 1.593 sed ejus à quo ordinatur. His Clerk who did ordaine him.

But these things are too known to need a multipli∣cation of instances.

The summe is this. The question was, whether or no, and how farre the Bishops had Superiority o∣ver Presbyters in the Primitive Church. Their do∣ctrine, and practice have furnished us with these par∣ticulars. 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 admi∣nistration: the Clergy might not travaile without the Bishops leave: they might not be preferred in a∣nother Diocesse without license of their own Bi∣shop: in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre them, and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it: without him they might not baptize, not conse∣crate the Eucharist, not communicate, not recon∣cile penitents, not preach; not onely, not without his ordination, but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order: The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sancti∣ons, and canonicall impositions, even by the decree of the Apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Igna∣tius, and the constitution of S. Clement, of the Fa∣thers in the Councell of Arles, Ancyra, and Tole∣do, and many others: The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy, and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia,

Taurinum, Agatho, and by the Emperour, and by the Apostles; and all this attested by the constant pra∣ctice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church infli∣cting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmaticall re∣solution of the old Catholicks declaring in their at∣tributes, and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they haye supreme, and universall spirituall power, (viz. in the sense above explicated) over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse, as, [

that they are higher then all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christs Vicar, President of the Church, Prince of Priests, of authority incompara∣ble, unparalell'd power,

] and many more, if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Epis∣copall jurisdiction, we have their depositions, wee may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our E∣piscopacy to the primitive state, for that is truly a reformation [id Dominicum quod primum, id hae∣reticum quod posterius] and then we shall be sure E∣piscopacy will loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations.

BUT against the cause,* 1.594 it is objected super totam Materiam, that Bishops were not Diocesan, but Parochiall, and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdicti∣on that perhaps our Village, or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit, as high as the Bishops throne.

* Well! put case they were not Diocesan, but parish Bishops, what then? yet they were such Bi∣shops as had Presbyters, and Deacons in subordina∣tion

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 then a Diocesse, it will bring the Priest lower then a Pa∣rish. For set a Bishop where you will, either in a Diocesse, 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 farre worse, it will not advance the Presbytery, but it will depresse the whole hie∣rarchy, and all the orders of H. Church.

* But because, this trifle is so much used amongst the enimies of Episcopacy, I will consider it in little, and besides that it does no body any good advan∣tage, I will represent it in it's fucus and show the falsehood of it.

1. Then. It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes. For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived almost 100 years after Christ, and divi∣ded Rome into seven parishes, assigning to every one a Presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the Pontificall book. Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris, & septem Diaconos ordinavit qui custo∣dirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veri∣tatis. 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 Ec∣clesias divisit, & caemiteria, parochias{que} & dioeceses constituit. Marcellus increased the number in the yeare 305. Hic fecit caemiterium viâ Salariâ, & 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum qui converte∣bantur ex Paganis, & propter sepulturas Marty∣rum. He made a Sepulture, or caemitery for the buriall of Martyrs, and appointed 25. Titles or Parishes: but he addes [quasi Dioeceses] as it had been diocesses, that is, distinct and limited to Presbyters, as dioces∣ses were to Bishops; and the use of parishes which he subjoynes, cleares the businesse; for he appointed them onely propter baptismum, & poenitentiam mul∣torum & sepulturas, for baptisme, and penance, and buriall; for as yet there was no preaching in Pari∣shes, but in the Mother-Church. Thus it was in the West.

* But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided some∣thing sooner then the earliest of these, for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Markes time had severall Churches in Alexandria.* 1.595 Etiàm DE ECCLESIIS quae apudeos sunt, it a dicit. Est au∣tem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus &c: But even before this, there were Bishops. For in Rome there were fowre Bishops before any division of Parishes, though S. Peter be reckon'd for none. And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria, S. Marke himselfe who did it was the Bishop, and be∣fore that time S. Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, and

in diverse other places where Bishops were, there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus time, for when Dionysius had assign'd Presbyters to severall Parishes, he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba, & desires him to doe so too in his Diocesse, as appeares in his Epistle to him.

* For indeed necessity requir'd it,* 1.596 when the Christians multiplyed and grew to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as* 1.597 Cornelius call'd the Roman Chri∣stians, a great and innumerable people; and did im∣plere omnia, as Tertullians phrase is, fill'd all places, and publike and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their publike offices could not be perform'd with so diffused and particular advantage, then they were forc'd to divide congregations, and assigne severall Presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the Bi∣shop, and so we see, the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were. At first in Rome there were none,* 1.598 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 institu∣tion that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish, therefore also a Parish is not by Christs ordinance an independant body, for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all, neither absolute, nor in de∣pendance neither; and then for the maine issue, since Bishops were before Parishes (in the present sense)

the Bishops in that sense could not be Parochiall.

* But which was first of a private congregation, or a Diocesse? If a private congregation, then a Bi∣shop was at first fix't in a private congregation, and so was a Parochiall Bishop. If a Diocesse was first, then the Question will be, how a Diocesse could be with∣out Parishes, for what is a Diocesse but a jurisdicti∣on over many Parishes?

* I answer, it is true that DIOCESSE and PA∣RISH are words us'd now in contradistinction; And now, a Diocesse is nothing but the multiplication of of many Parishes: Sed non fuit sic ab initio. For at first, a Diocesse was the Citie and the Regio suburbi∣caria, the neighbouring townes, in which there was no distinction of Parishes: That which was a Dio∣cesse in the secular sense, that is, a particular Pro∣vince, or division of secular prefecture, that was the assignation of a Bishops charge. * Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 heads of the Diocesse, (saith Pliny,) meaning in respect of secu∣lar jurisdiction;* 1.599 and so they were in Ecclesiasticall regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Common-wealth, it was of lesse suspition to the secular power, while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the politicall, as if of purpose to shew their mutuall con∣sistence, and it's owne subordination. ** And be∣sides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another Province, or Diocesse could not either safely, or conveniently meete where the duty of the

Common-wealth did not ingage them; but being all of one prefecture, and Diocesse, the necessity of publike meetings in order to the Common-wealth would be faire opportunity for the advancement of their Christendome. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all, by the sanction of the Councell of* 1.600 Chalcedon, and of Con∣stantinople in† 1.601 Trullo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the or∣der of the Church, follow the order and guise of the Common-wealth, viz. in her regiment, and prefe∣fecture.

* But in the moderne sense of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish, nor a Diocesse, as they are taken in relation; but a Bishop had the su∣preme care of all the Christians which he by him∣selfe, or his Presbyters had converted, and he also had the charge of indeavouring the conversion of all the Country. So that although he had not all the Diocesse actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his Diocesse was so much. Iust as it was with the Apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocesse, yet at first they had but a smal congregation that did actually obey them.

And now to the Question. Which was first, a particular congregation or a Diocesse? I answere, that a Diocesse was first, that is, the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts; And S. Marke was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted. * But ordinarily the Apostles, when they had converted a City or

Nation, then fix't Bishops upon their charge, and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocesse; But then, this Ci∣ty, or Nation although it was not the Bishops Dio∣cesse before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the Apostles Diocesse, and this they con∣credited to the Bishops respectively.

S. Paul was ordain'd by the Prophets at Antioch, Apostle of the Uncircumcision; All the Gentiles was his Diocesse, and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocesse was before a particu∣lar congregation. But if a diocesse be taken colle∣ctively, as now it is, for a multitude of Parishes uni∣ted under one Bishop, then one must needes be be∣fore 20, and a particular congregation before a dio∣cesse; but then that particular congregation was not a parish, in the present sense, for it was not a part of a Diocesse taking a Diocesse for a collection of Parishes; but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocesse, and like a Graine of Mustard-seed that in time might, and did grow up to a considerable height, even to a necessity of di∣stinguishing titles, and parts of the Diocesse, assig∣ning severall parts, to severall Priests.

2. We see that the Primitive Bishops, before the division of parishes, had the City, and Country; and after the division of parishes, had them all under his jurisdiction, and ever, even from the Apostles times had severall provinces (some of them I meane) within their limits and charges. * The 35 Canon of

the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are under his Diocesse & the Neigh∣bour villages, and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Councell of Antioch calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ancient Canon of our fore fathers; and yet it selfe is elder then three of the generall Councells, and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers that the City, and Villages should be subject to the Bishop, surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan.

But a little before this was the Nicene Councell,* 1.602 and there I am sure we have a Bishop that is at least a Diocesan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the old Cu∣stomes be kept. What are those? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording to the old custome of their forefathers, and yet that was so early that S. Anthony was then a∣live, who was borne in S. Irenaeus his time, who was himselfe but second from the Apostles.

It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of, even all Syria, Caelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both the Ciliciae. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishop of Syria he calls himselfe in his epistle to the Romans, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.603 so Theodoret: and be∣sides all these, his Successors, in the Councell of Chalcedon,* 1.604 had the two Phaeniciae, and Arabia yeilded

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 Christendome. * But examples of this kind are infinite.* 1.605 Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes,* 1.606 Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Marco∣tis, Libya, Ammoniaca, and Pent apolis, saith S. Epi∣phanius; And his predecessor Iulianus successor of Agrippinus was Bishop* 1.607 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Churches about Alexandria. Either it was a Diocesse, or at least a plurality. *† 1.608 S. Chrysostome had Pontus, Asia, and all Thrace in his parish, even as much as came to sixteen prefectures; a faire bounds surely; and so it was with all the Bishops, a greater, or a lesser Diocesse they had; but all were Diocesan; for they had severall parishes, singuli Ec∣clesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias, saith Epi∣phanius in his epistle to Iohn of Ierusalem,* 1.609 and in his book contra haereses, Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt, sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt, privatim{que} ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas necessitates, it aut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujus{que} Ecclesiae.* 1.610 * All Italy was the parish of Liberius (saith Socrates.) Africa was S. Cyprians parish, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen,* 1.611 and S. Basil the Great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia. But I ra∣ther believe if we examine their severall stories they will rather prove Metropolitans,* 1.612 then meere paro∣chians.

3 ^ly The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be or∣dain'd

in a Village, Castle, or Towne. It was so de∣creed in the Councell of Laodicea before the first Nicene.* 1.613 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Villages, or Countries, Bishops must not be constituted. And this was renewed in the Councell of Sardis,* 1.614 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is not lawfull to ordaine Bishops in Villages or little Townes to which one Presbyter is sufficient, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but Bishops must ordaine Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been. * So that this Canon does not make a new Constitution, but perpetuates the old sancti∣on. Bishops ab antiquo were only ordain'd in great Citties, and Presbyters to little Villages. Who then was the Parish Curate? the Bishop or the Priest? The case is too apparent.

Onely, here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Townes, and therefore these Canons were not observed, and Bishops might be, and were paro∣chiall, as S. Gregory of Nazianzum, Zoticus of Co∣mana, Maris in Dolicha. The one of these is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by* 1.615 Eusebius; and another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by† 1.616 Theo∣doret, a little Towne. This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochiall Bishops.

* But, first, suppose these had been parishes, and these three parochiall Bishops, it followes not that all were; not those to be sure, which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces, and Kingdomes. 2^ly It is a cleare case, that Nazianzum

though a small City, yet was the seate of a Bishops throne, so it is reckoned in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made by Leo the Emperour,* 1.617 where it is accounted inter thro∣nos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subje∣ctarum, & is in the same account with Caesarea, with Ephesus, with Crete, with Philippi, and almost foure∣score more.* As for Zoticus,* 1.618 he indeed came from Comana, a Village towne, for there he was born, but he was Episcopus Otrenus, Bishop of Otrea in Arme∣nia, saith† 1.619 Nicephorus. * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha, it was indeed such a small Citty as Na∣zianzus was, but that proves not but his Diocesse and territory was large enough.* 1.620 Thus was Ascle∣pius vici non grandis,* 1.621 but yet he was Vagensis terri∣torii Episcopus. His seat might usually be in a little Citty, if it was one of those townes in which ac∣cording to the exigence of the Canons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which Bishops anci∣ently were ordain'd, and yet the appurtenances of his Diocesse large, and extended, and too great for 100 Parish Priests.

4^ly. The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Dioce∣san, not Parochiall: for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge, and were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Visiters, (as the Councell of Laodicea calls them.) But what need such Suffragans, such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish. Indeed they might possibly have been needfull for the managing of a Citty-parish, especially if a whole Citty was a Parish, as these objectors must pretend, or not say

Primitive Bishops were Parochiall. But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop, and did their offices in the country, while the Bishop was resident in the Citty, either the Bishops parish ex∣tended it selfe from Citty to Country; and then it is all one with a Diocesse, or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus, or Visiter. * The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch, describes their use and power. Qui in villis & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi. . . . placuit sanctae Synodo ut mo∣dum proprium recognoscant, ut gubernent sibi subje∣ctas Ecclesias. They were to governe the Churches delegated to their charge. It seems they had many Churches under their provision, and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars, for so it followes in the Ca∣non; he must not ordaine any Presbyters, and Dea∣cons abs{que} urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitu••, & Re∣gio; Without leave of the Bishop of the Citty to whom both himselfe, and all the Country is subor∣dinate.

5. The Bishop was one in a Citty wherein were many Presbyters. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Ignatius.* 1.622 There is one Altar in every Church, and ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery, and the Deacons. Either then a whole City, such as Rome, or Ierusalem (which as Iosephus reports had 400 Syna∣gogues,) must be but one Parish, and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocesse, as a Parish in that latitude; or if there were many Pari∣shes in a Citty, and the Bishop could have but one

of them, why, what hindred but that there might in a Citty be as many Bishops, as Presbyters? For if a Bishop can have but one Parish, why may not e∣very Parish have a Bishop? But by the ancient Ca∣nons, a City though never so great, could have but one for it selfe and all the Country, therefore eve∣ry parish-Priest was not a Bishop, nor the Bishop a meere parish-Priest.

Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi,* 1.623 was the Con∣stitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus; and long before this, it was so known a businesse that one City should have but one Bishop, that Corneli∣us exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance,* 1.624 is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat, nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catho∣licâ unum Episcopum esse debere, ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta & sex. Novatus (the Fa∣ther of the old Puritans) was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters; intimating clearely that a Church that had two Bi∣shops is not Catholick, but Schismatick at least, (if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence) what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters? He is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he fights a∣gainst God, if S. Ambrose say true.* 1.625 Deus enim sin∣gulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit. God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church; and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was, may easily be guessed by himselfe who was the Ruler, and Bishop of the great City, and pro∣vince of Millaine. * And therefore when Valerius

* 1.626 as it was then sometimes used in severall Chur∣ches had ordain'd S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo, whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time, S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncano∣nicall, and yet he was not ordain'd to rule in com∣mon with Valerius, but to rule in succession and af∣ter the consummation of Valerius. It was the same case in Agelius,* 1.627 a Novatian Bishop ordaining Mar∣cian to be his successor, and Sisinnius to succeed him, the acts were indeed irregular, but yet there was no harme in it to this cause, they were ordain'd to succeed, not in conjunction.* 1.628 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saith Sozomen) It is a note of Schisme, and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire. Secundus Episco∣pus nullus est (saith S.† 1.629 Cyprian) And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian, it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instru∣ments and occasions of the Novatian Schisme by e∣recting another Bishop; Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum quem con∣fessi sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episco∣pum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. And these ve∣ry words the people also used in the contestation a∣bout Liberius, and Faelix. For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should returne to his See, on condition that Faelix the Arian might be Bishop there too, they derided the suggestion, crying out, One God,* 1.630 one Christ, one Bishop. So Theodoret re∣ports. But who lists to see more of this, may be sa∣tisfied (if plenty will doe it) ina 1.631 S. Chrysostome,

b 1.632 Theodoret, S.c 1.633 Hierom,d 1.634 Oecumenius,e 1.635 Optatus, S.f 1.636 Ambrose, and if he please he may read a whole booke of it written by S. Cyprian, de Vnitate Eccle∣siae, sive de singularitate Prelatorum.

6^ly. Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been pa∣rishes, yet what were the Metropolitans, and the Pri∣mates, were they also parish-Bishops? Surely if Bi∣shops were parochiall, then these were at least dioce∣san by their owne argument, for to be sure they had many Bishops under them. But there were none such in the Primitive Church? yes most certainly. The 35 Canon of the Apostles tells us so, most plaine∣ly, and at the worst, they were a very primitive re∣cord. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos PRIMUS HABEATUR, quem velut caput existiment, & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant, quàm ea sola quae parochiae propriae, & villis quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. The Bishops of every Na∣tion must know who is their PRIMATE, and esteeme him as their HEAD, and doe NOTHING without his consent, but those things that appertaine to their owne Diocesse. And from hence the Fathers of the Coun∣cell of Antioch deriv'd their sanction,* 1.637 per singulas re∣giones Episcopos convenit nosse METROPOLITANUM Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere &c. The Bishops of every province must know that their METROPOLITAN. Bishop does take cure of all the province. For this was an Apostolicall Constitution (saith S. Clement) that in the conversion of Gen∣tile Cities in place of the Archflamines,* 1.638 Archbishops, Primates, or Patriarchs should be placed, qui reli∣quorum

Episcoporum judicia, & majora (quoties ne∣cesse foret) negotiain fide agitarent, & secundùm Dei voluntatem, sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli, defini∣rent. * Alexandria was a Metropoliticall See long before the Nicene Councell, as appeares in the sixth Canon before cited;* 1.639 Nay, Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the ME∣TROPOLITANS that he had UNDER HIM to the Councell of Ephesus, by Theodosius and Valentini∣an Emperours, so that it was a PATRIARCHAT.

These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops. Now then either Bishops were Parochiall, or no: If no, then they were Diocesan; if yea, then at least many of them were Diocesan, for they had (according to this rate) many Parochiall Bishops under them. * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle, but as now a dayes it is made, the considerati∣on of it is materiall to the maine Question. Only this I adde; That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his owne, and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive, be∣cause all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had onely two townes in their charge, and no more, and each of these townes 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 disturbe this Question, by pretending that the Bishops were onely parochiall, not diocesan, and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest. Most certainely, themselves could

not beleive the allegation, onely they knew it would raise a dust. But by God's providence, there is water enough in the Primitive fountaines to al∣lay it.

ANother consideration must here be interpos'd concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the severall Churches.* 1.640 For though I have twice already showne that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution, or Apostolicall ordinance, yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primi∣tive Church, for those men that call the Bishop a Pope, are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinalls too, & to make every Diocesse a Ro∣mane Consistory.

1. Then, the first thing we heare of Presbyters (after Scripture I meane, for of it I have already given account) is from the testimony of S. Hierome,* 1.641 Antequam studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli &c: communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Before factions a∣rose in the Church, the Church was govern'd by the common Counsell of Presbyters. Here S. Hierome ei∣ther meanes it of the time before Bishops were con∣stituted 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 governe both them and all the diocesse beside.* 1.642 For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch

exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock untill God should declare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom he would make their ruler.* 1.643 And S. Cyprian speaking of Ete∣cusa and some other women that had made defail∣lance in time of persecution, and so were put to penance, praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantispèr sic esse, donec Episcopus constituatur. The Presbyters, whom sede vacante hee praeter morem suum calls Praepositos, they gave order that they should so remaine till the Consecration of a Bishop. * But, if S. Hierome meanes this saying of his, after Bishops were fixt, then his expression answers the allegation, for it was but communi CONSILIO Presbyterorum, the IUDICI∣UM might be solely in the Bishop, he was the IUDGE, though the Presbyters were the COUNSELLORS. For so himselfe addes, that upon occasion of those first Schismes in Corinth, it was DECREED in ALL THE WORLD, vt omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret, all the care of the diocesse was in the Bi∣shop, and therefore all the power, for it was unima∣ginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop, and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters. * And so S. Ignatius stiles them, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Assessors, and Counsellors to the Bishop. But yet if we take our estimate from Igna∣tius, The Bishop is THE RULER, without him though all concurr'd, yet nothing could be done, nothing at∣tempted; The Bishop was Superiour in ALL POW∣ER and AUTHORITY, He was to be obey'd in ALL THINGS, and contradicted in NOTHING; The Bi∣shops judgement was to sway,* 1.644 and nothing must seeme

pleasing to the Presbyters that was crosse to the Bi∣shops sentence: this, and a great deale more which I have formerly made use of, is in Ignatius; And now let their assistance and Counsell extend as farre as it will, the Bishops authority is invulnerable. But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierome's. §. thither I referre the Reader.

2. But S. Cyprian must doe this businesse for us, if any man, for of all the Bishops, he did acts of the greatest condescension, and seeming declination of Episcopall authority. But let us see the worst.* 1.645 Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri no∣stri. . . . solus rescribere nihil potui, quando à primor∣dio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio ve∣stro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere. And againe,* 1.646 quamvis mihi videantur debe∣re pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi, ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. And a third time,* 1.647 Quae res cûm omnium nostrum consilium & sententiam spectet, praejudicare ego & soli mihirem communem vindicare non audeo. These are the grea∣test steps of Episcopall humility that I find in mate∣riâ juridicâ, The summe whereof is this, that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence, and resolved to doe no∣thing without their advice. But then, consider al∣so, it was, statui apud me, I have resolved with my selfe to doe nothing without your Counsell. It was no necessity ab extrà, no duty, no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty, it was his owne voluntary act. 2. It was as well Diacono∣rum,

as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction, as appeares 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 regi∣ment in common, then the Deacons, by any Di∣vine law, or Catholike practice. 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too, and that will as well disturbe the Ius Divinum of an independant Presbytery, as of an independant E∣piscopacy.

But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled, for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian, like Moses, qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit vt so∣l•••• possit praesse populo, seniores elegit (to use S. Hierome's expression) who when it was in his power alone to rule the people,* 1.648 yet chose seaventy Elders for assistants. For as for S. Cyprian, this very Epistle cleares it that no part of his Episcopall authority was impayred. For he shewes what himselfe alone could doe. Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ, & religione, quam satis n••vi, his literis & hortor & mando &c. I intreat and COMMAND you. . . . vice meâ fungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit, Re my substitutes in the administration of Church af∣fayres. He intreates them pro dilectione, because they lov'd him, he COMMANDS THEM PRO RELI∣GIONE, by their religion, for it was a peice of their religion to obey him, and in him was the governe∣ment of his Church, else how could he have put the Presbyters, and Deacons in substitution?

* Adde to this; It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did onely impose hands in the ordination of Clerks, yet the Clergy did approve, & examine the persons to be ordain'd, and it being a thing of publike interest, it was then not thought fit to be a personall action both in pre∣paration, and ministration too (and for this S. Chry∣sostome was accus'd in Concilionesario [as the title of the edition of it, expresses it] that he made ordina∣tions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it,* 1.649 he did ordaine without the consent of the Clergy of his Church, for so he or∣dained Celerinus, so he ordain'd Optatus, and Sata∣rus, when himselfe was from his Church, and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministrati∣on of the daily offices. *** He did as much in ju∣risdiction too, and censures; for HIMSELFE did ex∣communicate Felicissimus and Augendus, and Rep••∣stus, and Irene, and Paula, as appeares in his 38, and 39 epistles; and tells* 1.650 Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abus'd him by vertue of his Episcopall authority. And the same power singly, and solely, he exercis'd in his acts of favour and absolution;* 1.651 Vnus at{que} 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 owne act, against the peo∣ple and without the Clergy. For he alone was the IUDOE, insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schisme and heresie that the Bishop was not

obey'd,* 1.652 nec UNUS in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus IVDEX VICE CHRISTI COGITATUR, and that ONE high Priest in a Church, and IUDGE INSTEED OF CHRIST is not admitted. So that the Bishop must be ONE, and that ONE must be IUDGE, and to acknowledge more, in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schisme and heresie. Farther yet, this Iudica∣tory of the Bishop is independant, and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit,* 1.653 & dirigit Vnusquis{que} Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus,* 1.654 and againe, habet in Ecclesiae administrati∣one voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquis{que} Prae∣positus: rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. The Bishop is Lord of his owne actions, and may doe what seemes good in his owne eyes, and for his actions he is to account to Christ.

This generall account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6^th, and 18^th epistles, and in∣deed, the whole Question. But for the 18^th epistle, there is something of peculiar answer. For first, It was a case of publike concernement, and therefore he would so comply with the publike interest as to doe it by publike counsell, 2^ly, 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 publike and solemne triall reconcil'd, it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent, and Martyrdome but seldome, 3^ly, The common coun∣sell which S. Cyprian here said he would expect,

was the Councell of the Confessors, to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publike assoyling of such peni∣tents who were overcome with those feares which the Confessors had overcome. So that this is evi∣dently an act of positive, and temporary discipline, and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bi∣shop, so to be sure, no advantage to the Presbyter. * But the clause of objection from the 19^th epistle is yet unanswer'd, 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 fairely de∣liver'd 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 doe an act of so publike conse∣quence without the advise of his Metropolitan. He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostoli∣call, and so he did, and no harme done to the present Question, of the Bishops sole and independant power, and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presby∣tery, who had nothing to doe beyond ministery, counsell, and assistance.

3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was, there were not alwayes a Colledge 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.* 1.655 So S. Ambrose, some∣times there was but one in a Church. Posthumianus in the third Councell of Carthage put the case. D••in∣de qui unum [Presbyterum] habuerit, numquid de∣bet 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 Councell now cited, of a Church that had never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that dyed; & once at Hippo they had none, even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valeri∣us to be ordain'd. In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Iudge alone, I am sure he had but little company, sometimes none at all.

4. But suppose it had been alwaies done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great diffi∣culty, and possibility of Scandall, for so S. Ambrose intimates,* 1.656 Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Con∣silio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ (understand, in these Churches where Presbyteries were fixt) yet this might be necessary, and was so indeed in some de∣gree at first, which in succession as it prov'd trouble∣some to the Presbyters; so unnecessary and imper∣tinent to the Bishops. At first I say it might be ne∣cessary. For they were times of persecution, and temptation, and if both the Clergy and people too were not comply'd withall in such exigence of time, and agonies of spirit, it was the way to make

them relapse to Gentilisme; for a discontented spirit will hide it selfe, and take sanctuary in the reedes and mud of Nilus, rather then not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge. 2. As yet there had been scarse any Synods to determine cases of publike difficulty, and what they could not re∣ceive from publike decision, it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Consiliary assi∣stance, and deliberation. For although, by the Ca∣nons of the Apostles, Bishops were bound twise a yeare to celebrate Synods, yet persecution intervening, they were rather twice a yeare a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dispersion then a Synod. 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles, yet it must be length of time, and a suc∣cessive experience that must give opportunity and a∣bility to give generall rules for the emergency of all particulars, and therefore till the Church grew of ••ome considerable age, a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite then since it hath been, when the frequency of Generall Councells, and Provinciall Synods, and the peace of the Church, and the innumerable volumes of the Fa∣thers, and Decretalls of Bishops, and a digest of Ec∣clesiasticall Constitutions, hath made the personall assistance of Presbyters unnecessary. 4. When ne∣cessity requir'd not their presence and Counsell, their own necessity requir'd that they should attend their severall cures. For let it be considered; they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters as∣sist the Bishop whether they think of what fol∣lowes.

For either they must have Presbyters or∣dain'd without a title, which I am sure they have complain'd of these threescore years, or else they must be forc'd to Non-residence. For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary, and daily oc∣currences of the Church, unlesse 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 doe not aide him, but in all these cases the Presbytery is impertinent.

5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity, and after by Custome it grew a Law; so now retrò, first the necessity fail'd, and then the desuetude abrogated the Law, which before, cu∣stome had established.* 1.657 [quod quâ negligentiâ ob∣soleverit 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 meane in Great ones) In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum,* 1.658 actum Pres∣byterorum, we have still (saith S. Hierome) in the Church our Senate, a Colledge, or Chapter of Presby∣ters, (he was then at Rome, or Ierusalem) but they were not consulted in Church affaires, & matter of jurisdiction, that was it, that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to passe. 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 custome in

this particular, the alteration was pregnant even be∣fore the end of the fowre generall. Councells, 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 Catholicisme and se∣vere discipline were conjunct; and then besides, it is no innovation in practice which pretends so faire 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 Councell in the Presbyters, and a trou∣ble to the Presbyters persons, and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a parti∣cular charge.

* One thing more before I leave. I find a Ca∣non of the Councell of Hispalis objected.* 1.659 Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest, solus autem au∣ferre non potest. A Bishop may alone ordaine 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 Bi∣shop in imposition of censures.

* To this I answer, first it is evident, that hee 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 downe, then in raising up. It was wont alwaies 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, then its own present authority.

But that's enough, for we are not now in que∣stion of divine right, but of Catholick and Primi∣tive practice. To it therefore I answer, that the con∣junct hand required to pull downe a Presbyter, was not the Chapter, or Colledge of Presbyters, but a company of Bishops, a Synodall sentence, and deter∣mination, for so the Canon runnes, qui profecto nec a•• un•• damna••i, nec un•• judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegii•• exuised praesantati SYNODALL 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri. And the same thing was determin'd in the Greekes Coun∣cell of Carthage.* 1.660 If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accu∣sed, their owne Bishop shall judge them, not alone, but with the assistance of sixe Bishops more, in the case of a Presbyter; three, of a Deacon; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bi∣shop of the place must ALONE heare and determine them, So that by this Canon, in some things the Bi∣shop 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 cla••••cular, but in open Court, in the full Chapter; for his Presbyters must be present; and so it is deter∣mind for Africa in the fourth Councell of Carthage, Vt Episcopu•• nullius causam audiat abs{que} praescutiâ 〈…〉〈…〉 alioquin irrita erit sententia E∣piscopi nini praesentiâ Clericonum confirmetur. Here

is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept, least the sentence should be clandestine, and so illegall, but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum, for it is sen∣tentia Episcopi, the Bishops sentence, and the Clerks presence only; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bishop ALONE might give sentence in the causes of the in∣ferior Clergy, even by this Canon it selfe, which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdi∣ction.

*** I know nothing now to hinder our processe; for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearely left in his own hand, and the Presbyters had no share in it, but by delegation and voluntary assumption. Now I proceed in the maine question.

VVEE have seen what Episcopacy is in it selfe,* 1.661 now from the same principles let us see what it is to us.* 1.662 And first; Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary, even to the being and constitu∣tion of a Church. That runs high, but we must fol∣low our leaders. * S. Ignatius is expresse in this question. Qui intra altare est, mundus est, quare & obtemperat Episcope, & Sacerdotibus. Qui vetò fo∣ris est hic is est, qui sine Episcopo, Sacerdote, & Dia∣cono quicquam agit, & ejusmodi inquinatum habet conscientiam, & infideli deterior est. He that is with∣in the Altar, that is, within the Communion of the Church, he is pure, for he obeyes the Bishop, and the Priests. But he that is without, that is, does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy, he hath filthy con∣science

science and is worse then an infidell. NECESSE ita{que} est, quicquid facitis, ut SINE EPISCOPO NIHIL faciatis. It is NECESSARY that what euer ye doe, ye be sure to doe nothing without the Bishop. Quid enim aliud est Episcopus, &c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater then all power? So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian, and Catholick communion, he that does not, is worse then an infidell. The same also he affirmes a∣gaine.* 1.663 Quot quot enim Christi sunt partium Episco∣pi, qui verò ab illo declinant, & cum maledictis com∣munionem amplectuntur, hi cam illis excidentur. All them that are on Christs side, are on the Bishops side, but they that communicate with accursed Schisma∣ticks, shall be cutt off with them. * If then we will be Christ's servants, we must be obedient and subor∣dinate to the Bishop. It is the condition of Christi∣anity. We are not Christians else. So is the inti∣mation of S. Ignatius. * As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admi∣rable epistle of his ad Laps••s,* 1.664 where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopa∣cy in concrediting the Keyes to Peter and the other Apostles, Inde (saith he) per temporum & successio∣num vices, Episcoporum ordinatio, & ECCLESIAE RATIO decurrit, VT ECCLESIA SUPER EPISCO∣POS CONSTITUATUR, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per EOSDEM PRAEPOSITOS gubernetur▪ Hence is it, that by severall succession of Bishops the Church is continued, so that the CHURCH HATH IT'S BEING, OR CONSTITUTION BY BISHOPS, and every act

of Ecclesiasticall regiment is to be disposed by them. Cùm hoc ita{que} divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror &c. Since therefore this is so ESTABLISHED BY THE LAW OF GOD, I wonder any man should question it, &c. And therefore as in all buildings, the foundati∣on being gone, the fabrick falls, so IF YE TAKE AWAY BISHOPS, the Church must aske a writing of divorce from God, for it can no longer bee called a Church. This account we have from S. Cyprian, and he reenforces againe upon the same charge in his * 1.665 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 ad∣hering to it's Pastor, and a people united to their Bi∣shop] for that so he means by Sacerdos, appears in the words subjoyn'd, Vnde & scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui Cum EPISCOPO NON SIT IN ECCLESIA NON ESSE, & frustrà sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sa∣cerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latentèr apud quosdam communicare se credunt &c. As a Bi∣shop is in the Church, so the Church is in the Bishop, and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church; and therefore they vainely flatter themselves that think their case faire and good, if they communicate in conventicles, and forsake their Bishop.

And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident, and zealous for a Bishop, that they would ••ather expose themselves and all their tribes to a

persecution, then to the greater misery, the want of Bishops.* 1.666 Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose. When Frasamund King of Byzac in Afri∣ca had made anedict that no more Bishops should be consecrate; to this purpose that the Catholike faith might expire (so he was sure it would, if this device were perfected) vt arescentibus truncis abs{que} palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur, the good Bishops of the Province met together in a Councell, and having considered of the command of the ty∣rant, Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanser ant com∣municato inter se consilio definierunt adversus prae∣ceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum, cogitantes aut Regis iracundiam, si qua forsan existeret, mitigandam, quò faciliùs ordinati in suis plebibus viverent, aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur, coronandos etiam fidei confessione, quos dignos invenichant promotione. It was full of bra∣very, and Christian sprite. The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God, rather then man, and to consecrate Bishops in all places, hoping the King would be appeased, or if not, yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a faire disposition to receive a Crowne of Martyr∣dome. They did so. Fit repentè communis assump∣tio, and they all striv'd who should be first, and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost. They were sure they might goe to heaven (though persecuted) under the conduct of a Bishop, they knew, without him the ordinary passage was ob∣structed.

Pius the first, Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, speak∣ing of them that calumniate,* 1.667 and disgrace their Bi∣shops endeavouring to make them infamous, they adde (saith he) evill to evill, and grow worse, non intelligentes quòd Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus con∣sistit, & cres••it in templum Dei; Not considering that THE CHURCH OF GOD DOTH CONSIST, or is established in BISHOPS, and growes up to a holy Temple?* 1.668 To him I am most willing to adde S. Hie∣rome, because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis digni∣tate pendet, The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity.

THE Reason which S. Hierome gives,* 1.669 presses this businesse to a further particular. For if an emi∣nent dignity, and an Vnmatchable power be not given to him, tot efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved; and we know that unity, and being, are of equall extent, and if the Unity of the Church de∣pends upon the Bishop, then where there is no Bi∣shop, no pretence to a Church; and therefore to sepa∣rate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schisma∣tick; For Unity which the Fathers presse so often, they make to be dependant on the Bishop. Nihil sit in vobit quod possit vos dirimere, sed Vnimini Episco∣p••, subjecti Deo per illum in Christo (saith S. Ignatius.) Let nothing divide you,* 1.670 but be united to your Bishop, being subiect to God in Christ through your Bishop.

And it is his congè to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus, opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Iesu Christo, in quo manete per Vnitatem Dei & EPISCOPI, Farewell in Christ Ie∣sus, in whom remaine by the Vnity of God and of the BISHOP. * Quantò vos beatiores judico qui depen∣detis ab illo [Episcopo] vt Ecclesia à Domino Iesu, & Dominus à Patre suo,* 1.671 vt omnià per Vnitatem con∣sentiant. Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop, as the Church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may consent in Vnity.

* Ne{que} enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt,* 1.672 aut nata sunt schismata, quàm inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non ob∣temperatur, nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Iudex vice Christi cogitatur. Hen••e come SCHISMES, hence spring HERESYES that the Bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high Priest,* 1.673 alone to be the Iudge. The same, S. Cyprian repeates againe, and by it, we may see his meaning clearer. Qui vos audit, me audit &c: Inde enim hae∣reses & schismata obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum E∣piscopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quo∣rundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatio∣ne Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur. The pride and peevish haughtinesse of some factious people that contemne their Bishops is the cause of all heresy and Schisme. And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons, that any Man should have any meetings, or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop, that if any man prov'd delinquent in this particular, he was pu∣nish'd

with the highest censures, as appeares in the 32 Canon of the Apostles, in the 6^th Canon of the Councell of Gangra, the 5^th Canon of the Councell of Antioch,* 1.674 and the great Councell of Chalcedon, all which I have before cited. The summe is this, The Bishop is the band, and ligature of the Churches U∣nity; and separation from the Bishop is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Theodorets expession is; a Symbol of faction, and he that separates is a Schismatick.

But how if the Bishop himselfe be a heretick, or schismatick? May we not then separate? Yes, if he be judg'd so by a Synod of Bishops, but then he is sure to be depos'd too, and then in these cases no se∣paration from a Bishop. For till he be declar'd so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocesse, least they by so doing become their Iudges judge, and when he is declar'd so, no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop, for the heretick, or schismatick must be no longer Bishop. * But let the case be what it will be, no separation from a Bishop, ut sic, can be lawfull; and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawfull to se∣parate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawfull to se∣parate from Episcopacy; That is the quintessence, and spirit of schisme, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institu∣tion.

* BUt is it not also heresie?* 1.675 Aërius was condem∣ned for heresie by the Catholike Church. The heresie from whence the Aërians were denomina∣ted

was, sermo furiosus magis quàm humanae conditi∣onis, & dicebat, Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum, nihil differt hic ab illo. A mad, and an unmanly heresie, to say that a Bishop,* 1.676 and a Priest are all one. So Epi∣phanius. Assumpsit autem Ecclesia, & IN TOTO MUNDO ASSENSUS FACTUS EST, antequam esset Aërius, & qui ab ipso appellantur Aëriani. And the good Catholike Father is so angry at the heretick Aërius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is call'd Aërius, ab aërijs spiriti∣bus pravitatis, for he was possessed with an uncleane spirit, he could never else been the inventer of such hereticall pravity. S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of hereticks, and adds at the conclusi∣on of his Catalogue, that he is NO CATHOLIKE CHRISTIAN that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines, amongst which, this is one of the princi∣pall. 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 publike opinion, was esteemed heresie, 2^ly, Aërius was called here∣tick, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blamelesse in equalling a Bishop, and a Presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemn'd by Epiphanius, and S. Austin. 3^ly, He was never condemn'd by any Councell, and how then can he be called heretick?

I answer; that dissent from a publike, or a received opinion was never called heresie, unlesse the contra∣ry truth was indeed a part of Catholike doctrine.

For the Fathers many of them did so, as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion; yet none ever reckon'd them in the Catalogues of hereticks; but such things only set them downe there, which were either dire∣ctly opposite to Catholike beliefe, though in mino∣ribus ••rticulis, or to a holy life. 2^ly, It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying pray∣er for the dead to be one of his owne opinions, and hereticall. But I cannot help it if they did, let him and them agree it, they are able to answer for them∣selves. But yet they accused him also of Arianisme; and shall we therefore say that Arianisme was no heresie, because the Fathers call'd him heretick in one particular upon a wrong principall? We may as well say this, as deny the other. 3^ly, He was not condemned by any Councell. No. For his heresie was ridiculous, and a scorne to all wise men; as Epi∣phanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. * But yet this is certaine, that Epiphanius, & Philastrius, & S. Au∣stin call'd this opinion of Aërius a heresie and against the Catholike beliefe. And themselves affirme that the Church did so; and then it would be considered, that it is but a sad imployment to revive old here∣sies, and make them a peice of the New religion.

And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aërius himselfe was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Councell, yet certainly the one halfe of his error is condemn'd for heresie in one of the foure Generall Councells, viz. the first Councell of Constantinople.* 1.677 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We call all them hereticks whom the Anci∣ent Church hath condemn'd, and whom we shall anathematize. Will not Aërius come under one of these titles for a condemn'd heretick? Then see for∣ward. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here is enough for Aërius and all his hyperaspists, new and old; for the holy Coun∣cell condemnes them for hereticks who doe indeed confesse the true faith, but separate from their Bi∣shops, and make conventicles apart from his Com∣munion. Now this I the rather urge because an Act of Parliament made 1^o of Elizabeth does make this Councell, and the other three of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresyes.

I end this particular with the saying of the Coun∣cell of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a Crabstock and something like Aërius,) cited by Burchard;* 1.678 Nullâ ratione Clerici aut Sacer∣dotes habendi sunt, qui sub nullius Episcopi disciplinâ & providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acepha∣los, id est, sine capite Priscae Ecclesiae consuetudo nun∣cupavit. They are by no meanes to be accounted Cler∣gy-men, or Priests, that will not be governed by a Bi∣shop. For such men the Primitive Church call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, headlesse, wittlesse people.

This onely. Acephali was the title of a Sect, a formall heresy, and condemn'd by the Ancient Church, say the Fathers of the Councell of Paris, Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may

perhaps be another conviction for the necessity of Episcopall regiment.* 1.679 Nicephorus can best informe us. Eodem tempore, & Acephali, quorum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit &c: Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy. But why were they cal∣led Acephali? id est, sine capite, quem sequuntur hae∣retici; Nullus enim eorum reperitur author à quo ex∣••rti sunt (saith Isidore).* 1.680 But this cannot be, for their head is knowne, Severus was the heresiarch. But then why are they called Acephali? Nicephorus gives this reason, and withall a very particular ac∣count of their heresy, Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quòd sub Episcopis non fuerint. They refu∣sed to live under Bishops. Thence they had their Name. what was their heresie? They denied the distinction of Natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies, but they had more; for they were tri∣um capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores, saith Isidore, they opposed three Canons of the Councell of Chalcedon.* 1.681 One we have heard, what their other heresies were, we doe not so well know, but by the Canon of the Councell of Paris, and the intimation of their name we are guided to the knowledge of a se∣cond; They refused to live under the government of a Bishop. And this also was impugnatio unius ar∣ticuli in Chalcedone, for the eighth Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon commands that the Clergy should be under Episcopall government. But these Acephali would not, they were antiepiscopall men, and therefore they were condemn'd hereticks; con∣demn'd, In the Councell 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 de∣functis, ne{que} baptismus juxtà solennem, at{que} receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratur, ne{que} ob∣latio, aut res aliqua divina facta, ministeriumvè Ec∣clesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communio∣nem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes serijs pascalibus in minutissimas incisam partes con∣venientibus ad se hominibus dederunt. Quo tempore quam quis{que} voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potesta∣tem. Et proptereà quod quilibet, quod si visum esset, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, at{que} haereticorum turba exorta est. It is a story wor∣thy observation. When any Bishop dyed they would have no other consecrated in succession, and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them dyed. But how then did they to baptize their Children? Why, they were faine to make shift, and doe it with∣out any Church-solemnity. But, how did they for the Holy Sacrament, for that could not be conse∣crated without a Priest, and he not ordain'd with∣out a Bishop? True, but therefore they, while they had a Bishop, got a great deale of bread consecra∣ted, and kept a long time, and when Easter came, cutt it into small bitts, or crummes rather, to make it goe the farther, and gave it to their people. And must we doe so too? God forbid. But how did they when all that was gone? For crummes would not last alwaies. 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 crummes; for I find the Councell of Sevill the Fa∣thers saying,* 1.682 Ingressus est ad nos quidem ex haeresi Acephalorum Episcopus; They had then it seemes got a Bishop, but this they would seldome have, and never but when their necessity drave them to it. But was this all the inconvenience of the want of Bi∣shops? No. For every man (saith Nicephorus) might doe what he list, & if he had a mind to it, might put his fancy into the Creed, and thence came innu∣merable troopes of Schismaticks and Hereticks. So that this device was one simple heresie in the root, but it was forty heresies in the fruit, and branches; clearely proving that want of Bishops is the cause of all Schisme, & recreant opiniōs that are imaginable.

I summe this up with the saying of S. Clement the Disciple of S. Peter,* 1.683 Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri, &c. tribus, & linguae non obtemperaverint, non solùm infames, sed & extor∣res à regno Dei, & consortio fidelium, ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ecclesiae alieni erunt. All Priests, and Clergy-men, and People, and Nations, and Languages that doe not obey their Bishop shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here, and of Heaven here∣after. It runnes high, but I cannot help it, I doe but translate Ruffinus,* 1.684 as he before translated S. Clement.

IT seemes 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 be∣lieved, and saw them to be the Fathers of their soules, the Guardian of their life and manners (as King Edgar call'd S. Dunstan) the guide of their consciences, the instruments and conveyances of all the Blessings heaven uses to powre upon us, by the ministration of the holy Gospell; would they, that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free, and open communion with a Catholick Bishop; would they have contested upon an aëry title, and the imaginary priviledge of an honour, which is farre lesse then their spirituall dignity, but infinitely lesse then the burden, and charge of the soules of all their Diocesse? Charity thinks nothing too much, and that love is but little, that grutches at the good words a Bishoprick carries with it.

However; let us see whether titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops, or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spirituall heraldry.

1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command. Honora Episco∣pum ut Principem Sacerdotum, imaginèm Dei refe∣rentem. Honour the Bishop as the image of God, as the PRINCE OF PRIESTS. Now since honour, and excellency are termes of mutuall relation, and all excellency that is in men, and things, is but a ray of divine excellency; so farre as they participate of God, so farre they are honourable. Since then the Bishop carries the impresse of God upon his fore∣head, and bears Gods image, certainly this participa∣tion

of such perfection makes him very honoura∣ble. And since honor est in honorante, it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himselfe, but it tells us our duty, we must honour him, we must doe him honour: and of all the honours in the world, that of words is the cheapest, and the least.

S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Pre∣lates of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let them be accounted worthy of dou∣ble 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.* 1.685 The Councell of Sardis speaking of the severall steps and capacities of pro∣motion to the height of Episcopacy, uses this ex∣pression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He that shall be found worthy of so Di∣vine a Priesthood, let him be advanced to the HIGH∣EST HONOUR. * Ego procidens ad pedes ejus roga∣bam, excusans me, & declinans HONOREM CATHE∣DRAE,* 1.686 & potestatem, (saith S. Clement, when S. Peter would have advanc'd him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chaire.) But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest, and then by analogy, of the Bishop, who although he be a Minister in the order of Melchisedek, yet he hath also the honour of Aaron, Omnis enim Pontifex sacro crismate perunctus, & incivitate constitutus, & in Scripturis sacris conditus, charus & preciosus ho∣minibus oppidò esse debet. Every High Priest or∣dained in the Citty (viz. a Bishop) ought forthwith to

be Deare, and Precious in the eyes of men. Quem qua∣si Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent, ei{que} servire, & obedientes ad salutem suam fidelitèr exi∣stere, scientes quòd sive honor, sive injuria quae ei de∣fertur, 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 in∣jury that is done to the Bishop, it is done to Christ, and so to God. * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himselfe? He that despiseth you, de∣spiseth mee. If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order then the rest, then although all dis∣countenance, and disgrace done to the Clergy re∣flect upon Christ, yet what it done to the Bishop is farre more, and then there is the same reason of the honour. And if so, then the Question will prove but an odde one; even this, whether Christ be to be ho∣nour'd or no, or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people? for if the Bishops be, then he is. This is the condition of the Question.

2. Consider wee, that all Religions, and parti∣cularly all Christianity did give titles of honour to their High-Priests, and Bishops respectively. * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Iewes, and how highly Honourable Aaron was in proportion. Prophets were called [Lords] in holy Scripture. [Art not thou MY LORD Elijah?] said Obed Edom to the Prophet. [Knowest thou not that God will take THY LORD from thy head this day?] said the children in the Prophets Schooles. So it was then. And in the

New Testament we find a Prophet HONOURD eve∣ry where, but in his own Country. And to the A∣postles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given, then was ever given to man by secu∣lar complacence and insinuation. ANGELS,* 1.687 and GOVERNOURS,* 1.688 and FATHERS OF OUR FAITH, and STARRS, LIGHT OF THE WORLD, the CROWNE OF THE CHURCH,* 1.689 APOSTLES OF IESUS CHRIST, nay, GODS, viz. to whom the word of God came; and of the compellation of A∣postles, particularly, S. Hierom saith, that when S. Paul called himselfe the Apostle of Iesus Christ,* 1.690 it was as Magnifically spoken, as if he had said, Prae∣fectus praetorio Augusti Caesaris, Magister exercit••s Tiberii Imperatoris; And yet Bishops are Apostles, and so called in Scripture. I have prooved that al∣ready.

Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sonnes of Zebedee, forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles, in order to a Kingdome, and an earthly Principality. For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sonnes, viz. faire honour, and dignity in an earthly Kingdome; for such a Kingdome they expected with their Messias. To this their expectation, our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis; And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitio∣ners, as if they had meant to supplant the rest, and yet the best preferment from them, to wit, in a tem∣porall Kingdome. No; (saith our blessed Saviour) ye are all deceived. [The Kings of the Nations in∣deed

doe exercise authority,* 1.691 and are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Be∣nefactors] so the word signifies,* 1.692 [Gracious Lords] so we read it,* 1.693 [But it shall not be so with you.] what shall not be so with them? shall not they exercise au∣thority? [Who then is that faithfull and wise stew∣ard whom his Lord made ruler over his Houshold?] Surely the Apostles, or no body. Had Christ au∣thority? Most certainly. Then so had the Apostles, for Christ gave them his, with a sicut misit me Pa∣ter, &c. Well! the Apostles might, and we know they did exercise authority. What then shall not be so with them? shall not they be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; In∣deed if S. Marke had taken that title upon him in A∣lexandria, the Ptolomies, whose Honourary appel∣lative that was, would have question'd him Highly for it. But if we goe to the sense of the word, the Apostles might be Benefactors, and therefore might be called so. But what then? Might they not be call∣ed Gratious Lords? The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an ensigne of a secular Prin∣cipality.

For as for the word [Lord] I know no more prohibition for that, then for being called RABBI, or MASTER, or DOCTOR, or FATHER.* 1.694 What shall we think now?* 1.695 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 a∣like for all, as is evident in the severall places of the Gospells, 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 ambi∣tious seeking of a temporall principality as the issue of Christianity, and an affixe of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles. * And if we marke it, our B. Saviour points it out himselfe. [The Prin∣ces of the Nations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exercise authority over them, and are called Benefactors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It shall not be so with you. Not so: how? Not as the Princes of the Gentiles, for theirs is a temporall regiment, your Apostolate must be Spirituall. They rule as Kings, you as fellow servants, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He that will be first amongst you, let him be your Minister, or ser∣vant; It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority, when there is a Minister or servant; But it must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that this great∣nesse doth consist, it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in. But more particularly, it must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It must not be [as the Princes of the Gen∣tiles] but it must be [as the sonne of man] so Christ saies expressely.* 1.696 And how was that? why, he came to Minister and to serve,* 1.697 and yet in the low∣est 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 sonne of Man; But then, the being called Rabbi, or Lord, nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio & regimine, in a spirituall su∣perintendency, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may stand

with the humility of the Gospell, and office of Mi∣nistration.

So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word* 1.698 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to rule with more then a politicall regiment, even with an abso∣lute, and despotick, and is so used in holy Scripture, viz. in sequiorem partem. God gave authority to Man over the creatures,* 1.699 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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,* 1.700 the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this wee know how it must be exercised,* 1.701 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a rod of iron, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessell. That's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Criticisme. It is cleare, that the forme of Regiment only is distinguished, not all Regiment, and authority taken away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Not as the Kings of the Gentiles, but as the sonne of man; so must your regiment be, for sicut mi∣si•• me Pater, &c. 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 publick mi∣nistery that you are put to rule over the Houshold. * And thus the Fathers expresse 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 Sacerdo∣tes se esse noverint,* 1.702 non Dominos; And yet S. Hie∣rom himselfe writing to S. Austin, calls him, Domi∣ne verè sancte, & suscipiende Papa. * Forma Aposto∣lica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur,* 1.703 indicitur Mini∣stratio. It is no Principality that the Apostles have, but it is a Ministery; a Ministery in chiefe, the offi∣cers of which Ministration must governe, and wee must obey. They must governe not in a temporall regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy, but in a spirituall, not for honour to the Rulers, so much as for benefit and service to the subject. So S. Austin. Nomen est operis, non honor is,* 1.704 ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. And in the fourteenth chapter of the same book, Qui impe∣rant serviunt ijs rebus quibus videntur Imperare. Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant, sed officio confu∣lendi, nec principandi superbiâ, sed providendi mise∣ricordiâ. And all this is intimated in the Propheti∣call visions, where the regiment of Christ is de∣sign'd by the face of a man; and the Empire of the world, by Beasts. The first is the regiment of a Fa∣ther, the second of a King. The first spirituall, the other secular. And of the Fatherly authority it is that the Prophet saies, Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children, whom thou maist make Princes in all lands. This (say the Fathers) is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops, who may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Princes or Rulers of Churches, not Princes of Kingdomes by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate. But if this Ecclesiasticall rule, or

cheifty be interdicted, I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 sinne, if it continues, and no sinne if it lasts but for a weeke? or is it lawfull to sinne, and domineere, and Lord it over their Bre∣thren for a weeke together? * But suppose it were, what will they say, that are perpetuall Dictators? Calvin was perpetuall president; and Beza, till Da∣naeus came to Geneva, even for many years toge∣ther? * But beyond all this how can the Presbyte∣ry which is a fixt lasting body rule and governe in causes Spirituall and Consistoriall, and that over all Princes, and Ministers, and people, and that for e∣ver? For is it a sinne in Episcopacy to doe so, and not in the Presbytery? If it be lawfull here, then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles, for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domi∣neere, and (as they call it now a dayes) to Lord it over their Brethren, when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to governe? but if the Apo∣stles may governe, then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sonnes of Zebedee, and then also, their successors, the Bi∣shops may doe 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.* 1.705 So S. Cyprian intimates. Apostoli pari fu∣êre consortio praediti, & honoris, & dignitatis; and

indeed this may be concluding against the Supre∣macy of S. Peter's Successors, but will be no waies pertinent to impugne Episcopall authority. For inter se they might be equall, and yet Superiour 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 ad∣vanc'd, but persecuted. But I had rather insist on the first answer; in which I desire it be remembred, that I said, seeking temporall Principality to be for∣bidden the Apostles, as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle. For in other capacities Bishops are as re∣ceptive of honour and temporall principalities as o∣ther men. Bishops vt sic are not secular Princes, must not seeke 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 unlawfull for a B••shop to have any Land, as to have a Country, and a single acre is no more due to the Order, then a Province; but both these may be conjunct in the s••me person, though still by vertue of Christs precept, the fun∣ctions and capacities must be distinguish••d; accor∣ding to the saying of Synesius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To confound and intermixe the Kingdome and the Priesthood, is to joyne things incompossible and inconsistent, Incon∣sistent (I say) not in person, but absolutely discre∣pant in function.

3. Consider we, that S. Peter, when he speakes

of the duteous subordination of Sarah to her Hus∣band Abraham, he propunds her as an example to all married women, in these words [shee obeyed A∣braham, and called him Lord] why was this spoken to Christian women, but that they should doe so too? And is it imaginable that such an Honoura∣ble compellation as Christ allowes every woman to give to her husband, a Mechanick, a hard-handed ar∣tisan, he would forbid to those eminent pillars of his Church, those lights of Christendome whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the re∣giment of the Catholike Church. Credat Apella.

4. PASTOR, and FATHER, are as honourable titles as any. They are honourable in Scripture. Ho∣nour thy Father &c: Thy Father, in all senses. They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings, and Bishops, and that not onely in secular addresses, but even in holy Scripture, as is knowne. * Adde to this;* 1.706 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church, and I am certaine, that, Duke, and Captaine, Rulers, and Commanders are but just the same in English, that the other are in Greeke, and the least of these is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spirituall regiment, and us'd words of secular honour to expresse it, as in the instances above, although Christ did interdict a secular principality, yet he forbad not a secular title; He us'd many himselfe.

5. The voyce of the Spouse, the holy Church hath alwaies expressed their honourable estimate in

reverentiall compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops, and have taught us so to doe. * Bi∣shops were called Principes Ecclesiarum, Princes of the Churches. I had occasion to instance it in the question of Iurisdiction. Indeed the third Councell of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be cal∣led Princeps Sacerdotum, or summus Sacerdos, or aliquid hujusmodi, but onely primae sedis Episcopus. I know not what their meaning was, unlesse 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 fan∣cy they had at Carthage, I am sure it was a guise of Christendome, not to speake of Bishops sine praefa∣tione honoris, but with honourable mention. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To our most blessed LORD. So the let∣ters were superscribed to Iulius Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren;* 1.707 in Sozomen. Let no man speake Untruths of mee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.708 Nor of MY LORDS THE BISHOPS, said S. Gregory Nazianzen. The Synodicall book of the Councell of Constantinople is inscribed DOMINI•• REVE∣RENDISSIMIS,* 1.709 ac pijssimis Fratribus ac Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio &c: To our most Reverend LORDS, and holy Brethren &c: And the Councell of Illyri∣cum sending their Synodall letters to the Bishops of Asia, by Bishop Elpidius, Haecpluribus (say they) persequi non est visum, quòd miserimus vnum ex omnibus,* 1.710 DOMINUM, & Collegam nostrum Elpidi∣um, qui cognosceret, esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à

DOMINO, & Collegâ nostro Eustathio. Our Lord, and Brother Elpidius. Our Lord and Brother Eusta∣thius. * The oration in the Councell of Epaunum begins thus. Quod praecipientibus tantis DOMINIS MEIS ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo &c: The Prolocutor tooke that office on him, at the com∣mand of so many GREAT LORDS THE BISHOPS. * When the Church of Spayne became Catholike, and adjur'd the Arian heresy, King Recaredus in the third Councell of Toledo made a speech to the Bi∣shops, Non incognitum reor esse vobis, REVERENDIS∣SIMI Sacerdotes &c: Non credimus vestram latere SANCTITATEM &c: vestra Cognovit BEATITUDO &c: VENERANDI PATRES &c: And these often. Your Holinesse, your Blessednesse, Most Reverend, Venerable Fathers; Those were the addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod. Thus it was when Spaine grew Catholike; But not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian records. They amongst them us'd but little Reverence to their Bi∣shops. But the instances of this kind are innumera∣ble. Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity then to speake of Bishops with the titles of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.711 Domine verè Sancte, & susci∣piende Papa,* 1.712 So S. Hierome a Presbyter, to S. Austin a Bishop. Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est,* 1.713 saith S. Austin. Episcopacy is Greater then the of∣fice and dignity of a Presbyter according to the TI∣TLES OF HONOUR which the custome of the Church hath introduc'd. * But I shall summe up these par∣ticulars

in a totall, which is thus expressed by S. Chrysostome.* 1.714 Haeretici à Diabolo HONORUM VOCA∣BULA Episcopis non dare didicerunt. Hereticks have learned of the Devill not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so. * For my owne particular, I am confident that my Lords the Bishops doe so under∣value 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,* 1.715 and S. Cyprian observing how Curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Iewes, even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell; he did it to teach us a duty.* 1.716 Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros LEGITIME ET PLENE HONORARI dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit. It is the argument he uses to pro∣cure a full honour to the Bishop.

* To these I adde; If fitting in a THRONE even above the seate of Elders be a title of a great dignity, then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Anti∣quity calling the Bishops chaire, A THRONE, and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church AN IN∣THRONIZATION. Quando INTHRONIZANTUR propter communem utilitatem Episcopi &c: saith P.

Anterus in his decretall Epistle to the Bishops of Boe∣tica and Toledo. INTHRONING is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop. Sedes in E∣piscoporum Eccles••is excelsae constitutae & praeparatae, UT THRONUS speculationem & potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent,* 1.717 (saith Vrban). And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.718 I trust that the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my THRONE.

** The summe of all is this. Bishops if they must be at all, most certainly must be beloved, it is our dutyes, and their worke deserves it. S. Paul was as deare to the Galathians, as their eyes, and it is true eternally, Form••sipedes Evangelizantium, the feete of the Preachers of the Gospell are beauteous, and then much more of the chiefe.* 1.719 Ideo ista praetulimus (charissimi) vt intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum, in eis{que} Deum veneremini, & eos UT A∣NIMAS VESTRAS diligatis, vt quibus illi non com∣municant, non communicetis &c: Now, love to our Superiours is ever honourable, for it is more then amicitia, that's amongst Peeres, but love to our Betters, is Reverence, Obedience, and high Estimate. And if we have the one, the dispute about the other would be a meere impertinence. I end this with the saying of S. Ignatius,* 1.720 & v••s decet non contemnere ae∣tatem Episcopi, sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium OM∣NEM ILLI IMPERTIRI REVERENTIAM. It is the WILL OF GOD the Father, that we should give all

REVERENCE, HONOUR, or veneration to our Bi∣shops.

VVELL! However things are now,* 1.721 It was otherwise in the Old Religion; for no ho∣nour was thought too great for them whom God had honourd with so great degrees of approximati∣on to himselfe in power, and authority. But then also they went further. For they thought whom God had intrusted with their soules, they might with an equall confidence trust with their personall actions, and imployments of greatest trust.

For it was Great Consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors, and great Dictators of Faith and conscience, should be the composers of those affayres in whose determinati∣on, a Divine wisdome, and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingre∣dients.

But, it is worth observing how the Church and the Common-wealth did actions contrary to each other, in pursuance of their severall interests. The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cog∣nisance of causes, and the confidence of their owne people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for faire issue, upon such good grounds as they might fairely expect from the Bishops abili∣tyes, authority, and religion; But on the other side, the Church did as much decline them as shee could, and made sanctions against it so farre as shee might without taking from themselves all oppor∣tunities

both of doing good to their people, and in∣gaging the secular arme to their owne assistance. But this we shall see by consideration of parti∣culars.

1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawfull for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment. S. Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular tribunall is against the office of a Bishop. And it is hard, if we will not al∣low that to the conveniences of a Republike which must be indulged to a private, personall necessity. But we have not S. Paul's example onely, but his rule too,* 1.722 according to Primitive exposition. [Dare any of you having a matter before another goe to law before the Vnjust, and not before the Saints? If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church] who are they? The Clergy I am sure, now adayes.* 1.723 But S. Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously. Let the Ministers of the Church be the Iudges. For by [least esteemed] he could not meane the most ignorant of the Laity, they would most certainly have done very strange justice, especially in such causes which they Under∣stand not. No, but set them to judge who by their office are Servants, and Ministers of all, and those are the Clergy who (as S. Paul's expression is) Preach not themselves, but Iesus to be the Lord, and themselves your servants for Iesus sake. Meliùs di∣cit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Yea but S. Paul's expression seemes to exclude the Governours

of the Church from intermedling. [Is there not one wise man among you that is able to Iudge betweene his Brethren?] Why Brethren, if Bishops and Priests were to be the Iudges, they are Fathers? The ob∣jection is not worth the noting, but onely for S. Ambrose his answer to it. Ideò autem Fratrem Iudi∣cem eligendum dicit, quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illo∣rum non erat ordinatus. S. Paul us'd the word [Bre∣thren] for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church,* 1.724 intimating that the Bishop was to be the man, though till then, in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be imployed.

2. The Church did alwaies forbid to Clergy-men A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of ingagements in REBUS SAECULI.* 1.725 So the sixth Canon of the A∣postles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Bishop,* 1.726 and a Priest, and a Deacon, must not assume, or take on him∣selfe worldly cares. If he does, let him be depos'd. Here the Prohibition is generall. No worldly cares. Not domestick. But how if they come on him by Divine imposition, or accident? That's nothing, if he does not assume them; that is, by his volunta∣ry act acquire his owne trouble. So that if his secu∣lar imployment be an act of obedience, indeed it is trouble to him, but no sinne. But if he seekes it, for it selfe, it is ambition. In this sense also must the following Canon be understood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Clerk must not be a Tutor, or Guardian, viz: of secular trust, that is must not seeke a diver∣sion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship.

3. The Church also forbad all secular negotia∣tion for base ends, not precisely the imployment it selfe, but the illnesse of the intention, and this indeed shee expressely forbids in her Canons.* 1.727 Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alie∣narum possessionum fiant, & saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant, Dei quidem Ministerium parvipen∣dentes, Saecularium verò discurrentes domos & PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudi∣nem sumentes. Clergy men farmers of lands, and did take upon them secular imployment FOR CO∣VETOUS DESIGNES, and with neglect of the Church. These are the things the Councell com∣plain'd of, and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood. Decre∣vit ita{que} hoc Sanctum magnum{que} Concilium, nullum deinceps, non Episcopum, non Clericum vel Mona∣chum aut possessiones conducere, aut negotijs saecula∣ribus se immiscere. No Bishop, No Clergy man, N•• Monke must farme grounds, nor ingage himselfe in secular businesse. What in none? No, none, prae∣ter pupillorum, si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam, ant civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat, aut Orphanorum, & viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt, ac per∣sonarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjuto∣rio, & propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. This Canon will doe right to the Question.

All secular affaires, and bargaines either for co∣vetousnesse, or with considerable disturbance of

Church offices are to be avoided. For a Clergy man must not be covetous, much lesse for covetise must he neglect his cure. To this purpose is that of the second Councell of Arles,* 1.728 Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat. But nor here, nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition abso∣lute, nor declaratory of an inconsistence and inca∣pacity; for, for all this, the Bishop or Clerk may doe any office that is in piâ curâ. He may undertake the supravision of Widdowes, and Orphans. And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupills, yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon, for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles, but here it is permitted only with, si fortè leges imponant, if the Law, or Au∣thority commands him, then he may undertake it. That is, if either the Emperor commands him, or if the Bishop permits him, then it is lawfull. But with∣out such command or license it was against the Ca∣non of the Apostles. And therefore S. Cyprian did himselfe severely punish Geminius Faustinus, one of the Priests of Carthage, for undertaking the exe∣cutorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor:* 1.729 he had no leave of his Bishop so to doe, and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his office, did in S. Cyprians Consistory, deserve a censure. 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon, any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or steward of a Church, and dispense her revenue if the Bishop command him. 4. He may undertake the patronage, or assistance of any distressed person that

needs the Churches ayde.* 1.730 From hence it is evi∣dent that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso a∣vocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty; for some secular imployments are permitted him, all causes of piety, of charity, all occurrences con∣cerning the revenues of the Church, and nothing for covetousnesse, but any thing in obedience, any thing I meane of the fore-named instances. Nay the af∣faires of Church revenues, and dispensation of Ec∣clesiasticall Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolicall, and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the A∣postles feet, and afterwards in the Bishops hands, we may quickly perceive that a case may occurre in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. saith Ignatius to S. Polycarpe of Smyrna. Let not the Widdowes be neglected: after God, doe thou take care of them.* 1.731 Qui locupletes sunt, & volunt, pro ar∣bitrio quis{que} suo quod libitum est contribuit; & quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur, at{que} is inde o∣pitulatur Orphanis, & viduis, iis{que} quivel morbo, vel aliâ de causâ egent: tum iis qui vincti sunt, & pere∣grè advenientibus hospitibus: & ut uno verbo dicam, omnium indigentium Curator est. All the Collects and Offerings of faithfull people are deposited with the Bi∣shop, and thence he dispenses for the reliefe of the wid∣dowes, and Orphans, thence he provides for travel∣lers, and in one word, he takes care of all indigent, and necessitous people. So it was in Iustin Martyrs time

and all this, a man would think, requir'd a conside∣rable 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 Ieru∣salem. This they themselves administred till a com∣plaint arose, which might have prov'd a Scandall; then they chose seven men, men full of the holy Ghost, men that were Priests, for they were of the 70 Disciples saith Epiphanius, and such men as Preached, and Baptized, so S. Stephen, and S. Philip, therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men, and yet they left their preaching for a time, at least aba∣ted of the height of the imployment, for therefore the Apostles appointed them, that themselves might not leave the word of God and serve Tables; plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables, must leave the Ministery of the word, in some sense or degree, and yet they chose Presby∣ters, and no harme neither, and for a while them∣selves had the imployment. I say there was no harme done, by this temporary office, to their Priestly function and imployment. For to me it is considerable. If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man, then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay. But if it does take up the whole man, then it is not ••afe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop, which is a dignity of a farre greater burden, and re∣quires more then a Man's all, if all was requir'd to

the function of a Presbyter. But I proceed.

4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks, doe prohibite it, onely in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis; and therefore when the offices are supplyed by any of the Order, it is never prohibited but that the personall abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advan∣tages either of Church, or Common-wealth. And therefore it is observeable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute, not that such a particular Clerke should there officiate. Thus the Councell of Arles decreed,* 1.732 ut Presbyteri SICUT HACTENUS FACTUM EST, INDISCRETE per di∣versa non mittantur loca . . . ne fortè propter eorum absentiam, & animarum pericula, & Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt, negligantur officia. So that here we see, 1. That it had been usuall to send Priests on Embassyes [sicut hactenus factum est] 2. The Canon forbids the indiscreet or promiscuous doing of it; not that men of great ability & choyce be not imployed, but that there be discretion, or discerning in the choyce of the men. viz. that such men be chosen whose particular worth did by ad∣vancing the legation, make compensation for ab∣sence 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 extra∣ordinary affaires of both states require men of an heightned apprehension. 3. The Canon only took care that the cure of the soules of a Parish be not re∣linquished,

for so is the title of the Canon, Ne Pres∣byteri causâ legationis per diversa mittantur loca, cu∣râ animarum relictâ. But then if the cure be sup∣plied by delegation, the feares of the Canon are prevented.

* In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbad Clergy-men to receive honour,* 1.733 or secular preferment; and so it is expressed where the prohi∣bition is made. It is in the Councell of Chalcedon. Qui semel in clero deputati sunt, aut Monachorum vitam expetiverunt, statuimus ne{que} ad militiam, ne{que} ad dignitatem aliquam venire mundanam. That's the inhibition; But the Canon subjoynes a temper; aut hoc tentantes, & non agentes poenitentiam, quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter Deum primitùs elege∣runt, anathematizari, they must not turne Souldi∣ers, or enter upon any worldy dignity to make them leave their function, which for the honour of God they have first chosen: for then, it seemes, he that tooke on him military honours, or secular prefectures, or consular dignity, could not officiate in holy Orders, but must renounce them to assume the other; It was in obstruction of this abuse that the Canon directed its prohibition, viz. in this sence clearely, that a Clerk must not so take on him secular offices, as to make him redire in saeculum, having put his hand to the plow, to look back, to change his profession, or to relinquish the Church, and make her become a Widdow. The case of S. Matthew and S. Peter, di∣stinguish, and cleare this businesse. Ecce reliquimus omnia, was the profession of their Clericall office.

S. Matthew could not returne to his trade of Pub∣lican at all, for that would have taken him from his Apostolate. But S. Peter might and did returne to his nets, for all his reliqui omnia. Plainly telling us that a SECULAR CALLING, a CONTINUED FIX'D ATTENDANCE on a businesse of the world is an impediment to the Clericall office, and mini∣stration, but not a temporary imployment or se∣cession.

5. The Canons of the Church doe as much forbid the cares of houshold, as the cares of pub∣like imployment to Bishops. So the fourth Coun∣cell of Carthage decrees.* 1.734 Vt Episcopus nullam rei fa∣miliaris 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 hous∣hold is worse then an infidell] it will easily informe us of the Churches intention. For they must pro∣vide, saith S. Paul, But yet so provide as not to hin∣der their imployment, or else they transgresse the Canon of the Councell; but this caveat may be as well entred, and observed in things Politicall, as Oeconomicall.

Thus farre we have seene what the Church hath done in pursuance of her owne interest, and that was that she might with sanctity, and without di∣straction, tend her Grand imployment; but yet ma∣ny cases did occurre in which she did canonically permitt an alienation of imployment, and revoca∣tion of some persons from an assiduity of Ecclesi∣asticall

attendance, as in the case of the seven set over the widdowes, and of S. Peter, and S. Paul, and all the Apostles and the Canon of Chalcedon.

Now let us see how the Common-wealth also pursued her interest, and because shee found Bishops men of Religion and great trust, and confident abi∣lities, there was no reason that the Common-wealth should be disserv'd in the promotion of able men to a Bishops throne. * Who would have made recom∣pence to the Emperour for depriving him of Am∣brose his prefect, if Episcopall promotion had made him incapable of serving his Prince in any great Negotiation? It was a remarkeable passage in Ig∣natius,* 1.735 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As our Lord is to be observ'd so also must we observe the BI∣SHOP, because he assists and serves the Lord. And wisemen, and of great Vnderstanding must SERVE KINGS, for he must not be serv'd 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 doe them service. For if onely men of great abilities are fit to serve Kings, surely as great abilities are required to inable a man for the service of God in so peculiar manner of ap∣proximation. He then that is fit to be a Bishop, is most certainly fit for the service of his King. This is the sence of Ignatius his discourse.

For consider. Christianity might be suspected for a designe; and if the Church should choose the

best, and most pregnant Understandings for her im∣ployment, and then these men become incapable of ayding the Republike, the promotion of these men, would be an injury to those Princes whose affayres 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 lawes, and imposed them with a face of religi∣ous solemnity. For the people are stronger then any one Governour, and were they not awed by Religion, would quickly miscere Sacra prophanis, jumble heaven and earth into a miscellany, and therefore not onely in the Sanction of lawes, but in the execution of them, the Antistites religionis are the most competent instruments; and this was not onely 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 esteeme that by the law of God they ought, and that actually they were in the Calenture of primi∣tive 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 Emperours themselves when they first became Christian allowed appeales from secular tribunalls to the* 1.736 Bishops Consistory, even in causes of secu∣lar interest, and the people would choose to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected

the issues of justice, and religion. * I say this was done as soone as ever the Emperours were Christi∣an Before this time, Bishops, and Priests (to be sure) could not be imployed in state affayres, they were odious for their Christianity; and then no wonder if the Church forbad secular imployment in meaner offices, the attendance on which could by no meanes make recompense for the least avocation of them from their Church imployment. So that it was not onely the avocation but the sordidnesse of the imployment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church. But as soone as ever their imployment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession, neither Church nor State did then prohibite it; And that was as soone as ever the Princes were Christian, for then immediately the Bishops were imployed in ho∣norary negotiations. It was evident in the case of S. Ambrose. For the Church of Millaine had him for their Bishop, and the Emperour had him one of his prefects, and the people their judge in causes of secular cognisance. For when he was chosen Bishop the Emperour who was present at the election cry∣ed out,* 1.737 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 Governour of Millaine at the same time; And therefore by reason of both these offices S. Austin was forc'd to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure.* 1.738 Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod volebam sicut volebam,

secludentibus me ab ejus aure, at{que} ore catervis nego∣tiosorum hominum, quorum infirmitatibus servie∣bat. And it was his owne condition too, when he came to fit in the chayre of Hippo;* 1.739 Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem; post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. And againe, & ho∣mines quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire cupientes,* 1.740 quando eis necessarij fuerimus, sic nos San∣ctos, & Dei servos appellant, ut negotia terrae suae pe∣ragant. Aliquando & agamus negotium salutis nostrae & salut is ipsorum, non de auro, non de argento non de fundis, & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidiè sub∣misso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum termi∣nemus. It was almost the businesse 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 lawfull, so we are to suppose in charity; but yet this we are sure of,* 1.741 S. Austin thought it not only lawfull, but a part of his duty, [quibus nos molestijs idem affixit Apostolus, and that by the au∣thority, not of himselfe, but of him that spake with∣in him, even the H. Ghost:] so he.

Thus also it was usuall for Princes in the Primi∣tive Church to send Bishops their Embassadours. Constans the Emperour sent two Bishops chosen out of the Councell of Sardis* 1.742 together with Salianus the Great Master of his Army to Constantius * S. Chrysostom was sent Embassadour to Gainas.* 1.743 Ma∣ruthus the Bishop of Mesopotamia was sent Embass∣adour from the Emperour to Isdigerdes* 1.744 the King

of Persia. S. Ambrose from Valentinian the yonger to the Tyrant Maximus. ** 1.745 Dorotheus was a Bishop and a chamberlaine to the Emperour. Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Epis∣copall office, and a secular dignity or imployment. Now then Consider. * The Church did not, might not challenge any secular honour, or im∣ployment by vertue of her Ecclesiasticall dignity precisely. 2. The Church might not be ambitious, or indagative of such imployment. 3. The Church∣e's interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such imployment, but where there was no grea∣ter way of compensation was interrupted and de∣press'd. 4. The Church (though in some cases shee was allowed to make secession, yet) might not re∣linquish her owne charge, to intervene in anothers ayd. 5. The Church did by no meanes suffer her Clerks, to undertake any low secular imployment, much more did shee forbid all sordid ends, and Co∣vetous designes. 6. The Bishop, or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety, though of secu∣lar burden. Clerks were never forbidden to reade Grammer, or Philosophy to youth, to be Masters of Schooles, of Hospitalls, they might reconcile their Neighbours that were falne out, about a per∣sonall trespasse, or reall action, and yet since now a∣dayes a Clergy-man's imployment and capacity is bounded within his Pulpit, or reading deske, or his study of Divinity at most, these that I have reck∣oned are as verily secular as any thing, and yet no law of Christendome 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 Scholler, that requires either finenesse of parts, or great learn∣ing, or overruling authority, or exemplary piety. 7. Clergy-men might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiours. 8. The Bishops, and Priests were men of Great ability and surest confi∣dence for determinations of Iustice, in which, reli∣gion was ever the strongest binder. And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forc'd the Bi∣shops from their owne interest to serve the Com∣mon-wealth, & in it they serv'd themselves directly, and by consequence too, the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular arme, but an addition of honour, and secular advantages, and all this war∣ranted by precedent of Scripture, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly of men whom all succeeding ages have put into the Calen∣der of Saints. * So that it would be considered, that all this while, it is the kings interest, and the Peoples that is pleaded, when we assert a capacity to the Bishops to undertake charges of publike trust. It is no addition to the calling of Bishops. It serves the King, it assists the republike, and in such a ple∣thory, and almost a surfet of Clergy-men as this age is supplied with, it can be no disservice to the Church, whole dayly offices may be plentifully supplyed by Vicars, and for the temporary avoca∣tion of some few, aboundant recompence is made to the Church (which is not at all injured) by be∣comming an occasion of indearing the Church, to those whose aide shee is.

* There is an admirable epistle written by Petrus Blesensis* 1.746 in the name of the Arch-bishop of Canter∣bury 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. administratio∣ne censentur. Quia sicut Scriptum est [minùs salu∣britèr disponitur regnum, quod non regitur consilio sapientum] In quo notatur eos consiliis Regum debe∣re assistere, qui sciant & velint, & possint patientibus compati, paci terrae, ac populi saluti prospicere, erudire adjustitiam Reges, imminentibus occursare periculis, vitae{que} maturioris exemplis informare subditos & quâdam authoritate potestativâ praesumptionem ma∣lignantium cohibere. It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes (saith he) their wis∣dome and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaimes them fit instruments to promote the publike tranquillity of the Common-wealth. They know how to comply with oppressed people, to ad∣vance designes of peace, and publike security; It is their office to instruct the King to righteousnesse, by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court, and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdome, to mixe influences of religion with de∣signes of state, to make them have as much of the dove as of the serpent, and by the advantage of their religious authority to restraine the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God, or

of religion is remaining. * He proceeds in the dis∣course and brings the examples of Samuel, Isaiah, Elisha, Iojada, Zecharias, who were Priests and Pro∣phets respectively, and yet imployed in Princes Courts, and Councells of Kings, and addes this; Vnum noveritis, quia nisi familiares, & Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi, suprà dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fa∣bricarent peccatores, & immanitèr, ac intolerabilitèr opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis. That's most true. If the Church had not the advantage of addi∣tionall honorary imployments, the plowers would plow upon the Churches back, & make long furrowes. * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing, But I shall content my selfe with this summary of the ad∣vantages which are acquir'd both to policy and Re∣ligion by the imployment of Bishops in Princes Courts. Istis me diantibus mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor, admittitur clamor pauperum, Ec∣clesiarum dignitas erigitur, relevatur pauperum in∣digentia, firmatur in clero libertas, pax in populis, in Monasteriis quies, justitia liberè exercetur, superbia opprimitur, augetur Laicorum devotio, religio fove∣tur, diriguntur judicia, &c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councells, then the rigor of Lawes is abated, equity introduced, the cry of the poore is heard, their necessities are made known, the liber∣ties of the Church are conserved, the peace of King∣domes labour'd for, pride is depressed, religion in∣creaseth, the devotion of the Laity multiplies, and tribunalls are made just, and incorrupt, and mercifull. Thus farre Petrus Blesensis. * These are the effects

which though perhaps they doe not alwaies fall out, yet these things may in expectation of reason be look'd for from the Clergy, their principles and calling promises all this, & quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est, ubi Dominus legis timetur, meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Faciliùs enim Dei ti∣more sententiam legis veram promunt;* 1.747 (saith S. Am∣brose,) and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed. But if personall defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling, then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince.

And now we are easily driven into an under∣standing of that saying of S. Paul* 1.748 [No man that warreth entangleth himselfe with the affaires of this life.] For although this be spoken of all Christian people, and concernes the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy, yet nor one, nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinde∣rance to their owne precise duty of Christianity. And such things must be par'd away from the frin∣ges of the Laity, as well as the long robe of the Clergy. But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop, I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function, so farre would it be from being hindered by the collaterall intervening of a Lay-judicature. I need not instance in any particulars; for if the judging matters and questions of religion be not left alone to them, they may well be put into a tem∣porall

imployment, to preserve them from suspiti∣on of doing nothing.

I have now done with this; only intreating this to be considered. Is not the King fons utrius{que} juris∣dictionis? In all the senses of Common-law, and externall compulsory he is. But if so, then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Iudges, as Lay-Delegates? For (to be sure) if there be an inca∣pacity in the Clergy of medling with secular af∣faires, there is the same at least in the Laity of med∣ling with Church affaires. For if the Clergy be a∣bove the affaires of the World, then the Laity are under the affaires 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 affaires? For the Church dif∣fers no more from the common-wealth, then the common-wealth differs from the Church. And now after all this, suppose a King should command a Bi∣shop to goe on Embassy to a forraine Prince, to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification, if the Bishop refuse, did he doe the duty of a Subject? If yea, I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop owes to his Prince, when hee shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying, and doing of his of∣fice, to which he is obliged, whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no, then the Bi∣shop was tyed to goe, and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment, for no man can be bound to doe a sinne.

BUt then did not this imployment,* 1.749 when the oc∣casions were great, and extraordinary, force the Bishops to a temporary absence? And what remedy was there for that? For the Church is not to be left destitute, that's agreed on by all the Canons. They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of, that attended the Court, and never visited their Churches, or took care either of the cure of soules, or of the Church possessions. What then must be done? The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power, and offices to others, though now adaies they are complain'd of for their care. I say, for their care; For if they may intervene in secular affaires, they may sometimes be absent, and then they must delegate their power, or leave the Church without a Curate. *** But for this matter the account need not be long. For since I have proved that the whole Diocesse is in curâ Episcopali, and for all of it, he is responsive to God Almighty, and yet, that instant necessity and the publike act of Christendome hath ratified it, that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are parishes in his Diocesse, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is pretended for de∣legation of Episcopall charge, is no lesse then the act of all Christendome. For it is evident at first, Presbyters had no distinct cure at all, but were in common assistant to the Bishop, and were his emis∣saries for the gaining soules in Citty, or Suburbs; But when the Bishops divided parishes, and fixt the

Presbyters upon a cure, so many Parishes as they distinguished, so many delegations they made; And these we all believe to be good both in law, and conscience. For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordi∣nes propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria (saith S. De∣nis,* 1.750) he does not doe the offices of his order by him∣selfe onely, but by others also, for all the inferior orders doc so operate, as by them he does his pro∣per offices.

* But besides this grand act of the Bishops first, and then of all Christendome in consent, we have faire precedent in S. Paul; for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommuni∣cate the incestuous person. It was a plain delegati∣on; for he commanded them to doe it, and gave them his own spirit, that is, his own authority; and indeed without it, I scarce find how the delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sense of the Apostolick Church, that is, to be buffeted, for that was a miraculous appendix of power Aposto∣lick.

* When S. Paul sent for Timothy from Ephe∣sus,* 1.751 he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar. [Doe thy dili∣gence to come unto me shortly, for Demas hath forsa∣ken me &c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus] Here was an expresse delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus, who for the time was Cu∣rate to S. Timothy. Epaphroditus for a while attended on S. Paul, although he was then Bishop of Philippi, and either S. Paul,* 1.752 or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution, or the Church was relinquished,

for he was most certainly non-resident.

* Thus also we find that S. Ignatius did dele∣gate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdome.* 1.753 Presbyteri pascite gregem qui in∣ter vos est, donec Deus designaverit eum qui princi∣patum in vobis habiturus est. Ye Presbyters doe you feed the flock till God shall designe you a Bishop. Till then. Therefore it was but a delegate power, it could not else have expired in the presence of a Su∣periour. ** 1.754 To this purpose is that of the Laodice∣an Councell. Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi, & sedere in tribunalibus, nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinis ••um esse con∣stiterit. Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop, unlesse the Bishop be sick, or absent. So that it seemes what the Bishop does when he is in his Church, that may be committed to others in his absence. And to this purpose S. Cyprian sent a playne commission to his Presbyters. Fretus ergo dilectione & religione vestrâ . . . . his literis hortor,* 1.755 & Mando vt vos. . . . VICE MEA FUNGAMINI circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit. I in∣treat and command you, that you doe my office in the administration of the affayres of the Church; and a∣nother time he put Herculanus, and Caldonius, two of his Suffragans, together with Rogatianus, and Numidicus, two Priests,* 1.756 in substitution for the ex∣communicating Faelicissimus and fower more. [Cùm ego vos pro me VICARIOS miserim.] So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius.* 1.757 Videbatur

autem & Melitius praeminere &c: vt qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu, velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens, & sub ipso Ec∣clesiastica curans. He did Church offices under, and for Hierocles; And I could never find any Canon or personall declamatory clause in any Councell, or Primitive Father against a Bishop's giving more or lesse of his jurisdiction by way of delegation.

* Hitherto also may be referr'd, that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a per∣plexe and buisy dispensation, were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopall function, yet that part of the Bishops office, the Bishop by order of the Councell of Chalcedon might delegate to a stew∣ard; provided he were a Clergy-man; and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Councell of Sevill forbid any lay-men to be stewards for the Church.* 1.758 Elegimus vt vnusquis{que} 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 allowes, onely forbids lay-men to be Vi∣cars. In uno enim eodem{que} officio non decet dispar professio, quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur, &c: In one and the same office the law of God forbids to joyne men of disparate capacities. This then would be considered. For the Canon pretends Scripture, Precepts of Fathers, and Tradition of antiquity for it's Sanction.

* FOR although antiquity approves of Episco∣pall delegations of their power to their Vi∣cars,* 1.759 yet these Vicars and delegates must be Priests at least. Melitius was a Bishop, and yet the Chan∣cellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria, So were Herculanus, and Caldonius to S. Cyprian. But they never delegated to any lay-man any part of their Episcopall power precisely. Of their lay-pow∣er or the cognisance of secular causes of the people, I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity, by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas, when his Clerks grew covetous, he cur'd their itch of gold, by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice, and contempt of money. * Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut LAICALI PROCURATIONE administrandam elege∣rit. . . . non solùm a Christo de rebus Pauperum judi∣catur reus,* 1.760 sed etiàm & Concilio manebit obnoxius. If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church af∣fayres to LAY ADMINISTRATION, he shall be respon∣sive to Christ, and in danger of the Councell. But the thing was of more ancient constitution. For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of S. Clement,* 1.761 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 ju∣dicentur, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid il∣lud est dirimatur. If Christian people have causes of difference and judiciall contestation, let it be ended before the PRIESTS. For so S. Clement expounds

[Presbyteros] in the same Epistle, reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy.* 1.762 To this or some paralell constitution S. Hierome relates, saying that [Priests from the beginning were appointed judges of causes]. He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops, and they were Iudges ab initio, from the beginning (saith S. Hierom). So that this saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority, but it excludes the assistance of lay-men from their Consistories. Presybter, and E∣piscopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom, but they are alwaies Clergy, with him and all men else.

* 1.763 But for the mayne Question, S. Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence, and humility, In causâ fidei, vel Eccle∣siastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec Munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare, that Clergy-men must onely judge of Clergy-causes; and this S. Ambrose there call's judicium Episcopale. The Bishops judicature. Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesiâ didici, quod Majores fecerunt mei. Si conferendum de fide, Sa∣cerdotum debet esse ista collatio, sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe. So that, both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiasticall Order are to be handled in the Church, and that by Bishops, and that sub Imperatore, by permission and authority of the Prince. For so it was in Nice, under Constantine. Thus farre S. Ambrose.

* 1.764 S. Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of

Corduba, president in the Nicene Councell, said, it was the abhomination of desolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs, in Church-causes; And Leontius calls Church-affayres,* 1.765 Res alienas à Laicis, things of another Court, of a distinct cognisance from the Laity. * To these adde the Councell of Venice,* 1.766 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 ip∣sum Episcopum fuerit nat a contentio, aliorum Epis∣coporum audientiam, NON SAECULARIUM POTES∣TATUM debebit ambire. Alitèr à communione habea∣tur alienus. Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants, but the Bishop, unlesse the Bishop be appealed from, then other Bishops must heare the cause, but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes.

* 1.767 These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict, for so Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall, Secular Iudges should have no interest, SED SAN∣CTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS RE∣GULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT. The Bishop ac∣cording to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters. I end this with the decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church, Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ,* 1.768 ne saecularibus viris, at{que} non sub regulâ nost••â degentibus res Ec∣clesiasticae committantur. Heed must be taken that

matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons. But of this I have twice spoken al∣ready. §. 36. and §. 41.

The thing is so evident, that it is next to impu∣dence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were par∣ties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church. It was against their faith, it was against their pra∣ctice; and those few pigmy objections, out of * Ter∣tullian,* 1.769 S. Ambrose, and S. Austin using the word Seniores, or Elders, sometimes for Priests, as being the latine for the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes for a secular Magistrate, or Alderman, (for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius) are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure; for to pretend such slight, aëry ima∣ginations, against the constant, knowne, open, Ca∣tholike practice and doctrine of the Church, and history of all ages, is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering.

* But this is; That in this Question of lay-El∣ders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages. For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white, and watry colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprison of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now adayes they are only us'd to ex∣clude and drive forth Episcopacy, but then they mis∣alledge antiquity, for the men with whose Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part, and he that

was not, would faine have beene, it is knowne so of Tertullian, and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters (which they never dream'd of) yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy, and if not, then the pretended allegations can doe no service in the present Que∣stion.

I am only to cleare this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either divine, or humane, but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasti∣call as they are unheard of in antiquity, so they are neither nam'd in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their ima∣ginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the lake of Gebenna, and so to the place of the neerest denomi∣nation. * The objection is from S.* 1.770 Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word & doctrine. especially they.—therefore all Elders doe not so. Here are two sorts of Elders, Preaching Ministers, and Elders not Preachers. Therefore Lay-Elders, and yet all are governours.

1. But why therefore Lay-Elders? Why may there not be diverse Church-officers, and yet but one, or two of them the Preacher? [Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach] saith S. Paul, and yet the commission of [baptizate] was as large as [praedicate] and why then might not another say,

Christ sent me not to Preach, but to Baptize, that is, in S. Pauls sense, not so much to doe one, as to doe the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme, and betook himselfe to the ordinary of∣fice of Preaching, then to be sure, some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer, and so, not the Prea∣cher, for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not S. Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same order, yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to severall gifts, and that of Prophecy, or Preach∣ing was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other offices, and yet be∣cause the guift of Prophecy was the greatest, so al∣so was the office, and therefore the sense of the words is this, that all Presbyters must be honour'd, but especially they that Prophecy, doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery. So no Lay-Elders yet. Adde to this, that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach. Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek borne, and yet a Godly Bishop, and S. Austin his Presbyter preach'd for him. The same case might occurre in the Apostles times. For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Sy∣naxes, especially in all great Imperiall Citties, and Metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, Ierusalem, Caesa∣rea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all Prophecy, they were particular guifts given severally, to severall men ap∣pointed

to minister in Church-offices. Some Pro∣phecyed, some interpreted; and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick, whosoever in the ages Apostolicall was not a Preacher.

2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders, so that we have a traditive in∣terpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office.

3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Lay-man, if a Church officer be in∣tended. If it be said, it is used so here, that's the que∣stion, and must not be brought to prove it selfe.

4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintain'd by Ecclesiasticall revenue, for so S. Paul expounds [honour] in the next verse. Presbyters that rule well must be honoured &c. For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne. But now, the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten leggs, and so perish, then fixe him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting.

5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the Pastorall office, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To rule, and to labour in the word. Iust as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ. All good Counsellors of State are worthy of dou∣ble

honour, especially them that disregarding their own private, aime at the publike good. This im∣plies not two sorts of Counsellors, but two parts of a Counsellors worth, and quality. Iudges that doe righteousnesse are worthy of double honour, espe∣cially if they right the cause of Orphans, and Wid∣dowes, and yet there are no righteous judges that refuse to doe both.

6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach, at least not frequently. The seven that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set over the Widdowes were Presby∣ters, but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the word to attend that imploy∣ment, as I shewed* 1.771 formerly; and thus it was in descent too, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (said Socrates) A Presbyter does not Preach in A∣lexandria, the Bishop only did it. And then the alle∣gation 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 ex∣traordinary pains in propagating the Gospell. For though all preach, (suppose that) yet all doe not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, take such great pains in it, as is intimated in, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to take bodily labour, and tra∣vaile, us{que} ad lassitudinem, (so Budaeus renders it.)

And so it is likely S. Paul here means. Honour the good Presbyters, but especially them that travell for disseminating the Gospell. And the word is of∣ten so used in Scripture. S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I have travelled in the word more then they all. Not that S. Paul preached more then all the Apostles, for most certainly, they made it their businesse as well as he. But he travelled further and more then they all for the spreading it. And thus it is said of the good Woman that travelled with the Apostles, for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices, [they laboured much in the Lord.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the word for them too. So it is said of Persis, of Mary, of Tryphaena, of Triphosa.* 1.772 And since these women were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that travel∣led with the Apostolicall men and Evangelists, the men also travelled to, and preach'd, and therefore were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is travellers in the word.* 1.773 [We ought therefore to receive such] (saith S. Iohn) intimating a particular reception of them, as being towards us of a peculiar merit. So that the sense of S. Paul may be this also, All the Rulers of the Church, that is, all Bishops, Apostles, and Apostolick men, are to be honoured, but especially them who, besides the former ruling, are also travellers in the word, or Evangelists.

7. We are furnished with answere enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders, from the com∣mon 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 Epis∣copus is all one, and this very thing confidently ob∣truded 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 pur∣poses.

9. If both these offices of RULING and PREACHING may be conjunct in one person, then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the severall imployments, since one man may doe both. But if these offices cannot be conjunct, then no Bishops must preach, nor no preachers be of the Consistory (take which government you list) for if they be, then the offices being united in one person, the inference of the distinct officer, the Lay-Elder, is impertinent. For the meaning of S. Paul would be nothing but this. All Church-Rulers must be honour'd, Especially for their preaching. For if the offices may be united in one person (as it is evident they may) then this may be comprehen∣ded within the other, and only be a vitall part and of peculiar excellency. And indeed so it is, according to the exposition of S. Chrysostome, and Primasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They rule well, that spare nothing for the care of the flock. So that this is the generall charge, and preaching is the particular. For the work in generall they are to receive double honour, but this of preaching, as then preaching was, had a

particular excellency, and a plastick power to forme men into Christianity, especially it being then at∣tested with miracles.

But the new office of a Lay-Elder, I confesse 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 An∣tiquity, that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholick Church, and runne 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 remaine in the fold of Christ, under the guard, and supravision of those sheapheards Christ hath appointed, and which his sheep have alwaies fol∣lowed.

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 thiefe come, him they will not heare] Clearly thus. That Christ's sheep heare not the voice of a stran∣ger, nor will they follow him, and therefore those sheapheards whom the Church hath followed in all ages, are no strangers, but Sheapheards or Pastors of Christs appointing, or else Christ hath had no sheep; for if he hath, then Bishops are the sheap∣heards, for them they have ever followed. I end with that golden rule of Vincentius Lirinensis,* 1.774 Mag∣noperè

curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubi{que}, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim verè, proprie{que} Catholicum. For certainly the Ca∣tholick belief of the Church against Arius, Euno∣mius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and (the worst of hereticks) the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all, and alwaies, and every where then is the government of the Church by Bishops. An∣nunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt,* 1.775 nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit. It never was, is, nor ever shall be lawfull to teach Christian people any new thing then what they have received from a primitive fountain, and is de∣scended in the stream of Catholick, uninterrupted succession.

* I onely adde, that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholike Christians to pray for Bishops, and as the case now stands, for Episcopacy it selfe, for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said Letanyes for their KING, and for their BISHOP.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Maximini jussu Marty∣rio coronatur. Saith Platina, but that is wholly un∣certaine.
• * 1.2

  in 1. ad Titū
• * 1.3

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.4

  §. 1. Christ did institute a governe∣ment in his Church.
• * 1.5

  Simler: de rep: Helvet: fol▪ 148. & 172.
• * 1.6

  De doctr. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. tract. 118. in Iohan. vide etiam tract. 124. & tract. 50. in Ioh, de Agon. Christ. cap. 30 de bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.7

  De Sacerd. lib. 3.
• † 1.8

  In 16. Matt.
• a 1.9

  Lib. de pu∣dicit.
• b 1.10

  Epist. 27.
• c 1.11

  Lib. qd Chri∣stus est Deus.
• d 1.12

  Lib. 6. de Trinit.
• e 1.13

  Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke, 12. 42.
• * 1.14

  Psal: 78.
• * 1.15

  1. Pet. 5. 2. Acts. 20.
• * 1.16

  in lib: de eo quod deterior p••tiori infi∣diatur.
• * 1.17

  § 2. This go∣vernment was first committed to the A∣postles by Christ
• * 1.18

  vide Hila∣rium in hunc locum & pp. communitèr.
• * 1.19

  § 3. With a power of joyning o∣thers and appointing successors in the A∣postolate
• * 1.20

  § 4. This suc∣cession into the ordina∣ry office of Apostolate is made by Bishops
• * 1.21

  For the A∣postle and the Bishop are all one in name & person
• * 1.22

  In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17.
• * 1.23

  1. Galat. 19.
• * 1.24

  1. Corin. 15.
• * 1.25

  Vide Carol. Bovium in constit. Apost. Schol. Hieron. de Script. Ec∣cl. in Jacobo. & in 1. Ga∣lat. Epiphan. haeres. 78, 79.
• * 1.26

  Tract. 124. in Iohan.
• * 1.27

  Vide pag.
• * 1.28

  Philip. 2. 25.
• * 1.29

  In bunc locum ••ter{que} & Theod. in 1. Tim 3.
• * 1.30

  Acts. 13. v. 2, 3.
• * 1.31

  Rom. 11, 13.
• * 1.32

  Galat. 2, 8.
• * 1.33

  In 1. cap. Ga∣lat.
• * 1.34

  2. Corinth. 8, 23.
• * 1.35

  Vers. 22.
• * 1.36

  V. 23.
• * 1.37

  § 5. And office,
• * 1.38

  Apocal. 2.
• * 1.39

  Doroth. Sy∣nops.
• * 1.40

  Vide Constit. Apost. per Clement. ubi quidam Io∣hannes in E∣pheso Episc. post Timoth. collocatur.
• * 1.41

  § 6. Which Christ him∣selfe hath made di∣stinct from Presbyters
• * 1.42

  Luke 10.
• * 1.43

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.44

  § 7. Giving to Apostles a power to doe some offices per∣petually necessary, which to others he gave not.
• * 1.45

  Eccles. hie∣rarch. c. 5.
• * 1.46

  As of Or∣dination,
• * 1.47

  In Trullo. can. 16.
• * 1.48

  Haeres. 20.
• * 1.49

  Homil. 14. in Act. 6.
• * 1.50

  In hanc locū.
• * 1.51

  Acts. 13.
• * 1.52

  Prophetas du∣plici genere intelligamus, & futura di∣centes & Scripturas revelantes. S. Ambros: in 1. Corinth. 12.
• * 1.53

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.54

  § 8. And Con∣firmation,
• * 1.55

  S. Cyprian: ad Iubajan.
• * 1.56

  lib: 3 hist: cap. 37.
• * 1.57

  vide Augast. tract. 6. in 1. Epist. Iohan.
• * 1.58

  Act. 2. 39.
• * 1.59

  Serm. de Penti∣coste.
• * 1.60

  Hebr. 6. 2.
• * 1.61

  lib: 3. hist: cap. 17.
• * 1.62

  Quaest. 137. ad Orthod:
• * 1.63

  Epist: 73. ad lubajan:
• * 1.64

  Lib. 6. hist. cap: 33.
• * 1.65

  in 1. tom. Concil:
• a 1.66

  lib. de bap∣tismo. c. 8
• b 1.67

  lib: 2. con∣tra lit: Petil: cap. 104. & lib. 15. de Tri∣nitic 26. vide etiam S Hie∣ron: contra Luciferianos. S. Ambros: lib. 2. c. 2 de sacramentis Epist: 3. Euse∣bij P. & M. ad Episc. Tus∣ciae & Cam∣pon: I sidor: Hispal de ec∣cles: offic. lib. 2. c. 26.
• * 1.68

  § 9. And Supe∣riority of Iurisdicti∣on,
• * 1.69

  Iohn. 20. 21.
• * 1.70

  Lib. 7. de bap∣tism. Contra Donatist. c. 43. vide eti∣am S. Cypri∣an, de Vnit. Eccles. & S. Cyrill. in Ioh. lib. 12. c. 55.
• * 1.71

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.72

  1. Corinth. 12.
• a 1.73

  Lib. 1. hist. c 12. & l. 2. c 9.
• b 1.74

  Haeres. 20.
• c 1.75

  De script. Eccles. in Matth. vide Irenaeum l 4. c. 63. Ter∣tul de prae∣script.
• * 1.76

  Vt puta, viduarum collegium, & Diaconorum, & coenobium fidelium. &c:
• * 1.77

  Revel. 1. vers. 20.
• * 1.78

  Hebr. 13.
• * 1.79

  Act. 15.
• * 1.80

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.81

  in 1. Apocal.
• * 1.82

  ibid:
• * 1.83

  in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.84

  Epist. 162. & in Apocal.
• * 1.85

  lib. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.86

  lib. 4 c. 10.
• * 1.87

  lib. 4. cap. 15.
• † 1.88

  Epist. ad Po∣licarp.
• * 1.89

  de praescrip.
• * 1.90

  vide Aretha. in 1. Apoc.
• * 1.91

  lib. 4. cap. 26.
• * 1.92

  In Lucae cap. 10.
• * 1.93

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.94

  § 10. So that Bi∣shops are successors in the office of Apostle∣ship, ac∣cording to the gene∣rall tenent of Antiqui∣ty.
• * 1.95

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.96

  Lib. de prae∣script. c. 36.
• * 1.97

  Epist. 42. ad Cornelium.
• * 1.98

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.99

  Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis. cont. Donatist.
• * 1.100

  Epist. 54.
• * 1.101

  De verbis Dom. serm. 24
• * 1.102

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.103

  In 1. Corinth. 12. 28.
• * 1.104

  In vers. 29. ibid.
• * 1.105

  Biblioth. Phot. n. 254.
• * 1.106

  Lib. 4. c. 18.
• * 1.107

  Epist. 1.
• a 1.108

  Epist. 1▪ ad Simpron.
• b 1.109

  Homil. 26. in Evang.
• c 1.110

  Orat. 2. de imagin.
• d 1.111

  Epist. 7.
• e 1.112

  Habetur Can. in Novo distinct. 21.
• f 1.113

  In synod. Hi∣spal.
• g 1.114

  Lib. 3. c. 15. super Lucam.
• * 1.115

  § 11. And parti∣cularly of S. Peter,
• * 1.116

  Epist. 27. ad Lapsos.
• * 1.117

  Epist. 1.
• * 1.118

  Lib. 12. thes. cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil:
• * 1.119

  tract. primâ die suae ordinat.
• * 1.120

  Biblioth. SS. PP. tom. 5 in Eccles. ord. in crepat.
• * 1.121

  Acts, 13.
• * 1.122

  Idem ferè habet in Epist. ad Magnes: & Smyr∣nens.
• * 1.123

  Lib. 4. c. 43.
• * 1.124

  Cap. 44▪
• * 1.125

  Epist. 13.
• * 1.126

  § 12. And the institution of Episco∣pacy as well as of the Apo∣stolate ex∣pressed to be Divine, by primi∣tive autho∣rity, Epist. 27.
• * 1.127

  Epist. 65. Rogatian.
• * 1.128

  Epist. 76.
• * 1.129

  Epist, ad Ma∣gnes.
• * 1.130

  Quaest. Vet. & N. Testam. qu. 97.
• * 1.131

  Euseb. lib. 4. c. 22.
• * 1.132

  Lib. 4. c. 43.
• * 1.133

  In 1. Corinth. 12.
• * 1.134

  De dignit. Sa∣cerd. cap. 2.
• * 1.135

  Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat. in 1. Tim. 1. cap.
• * 1.136

  In 1. Tit.
• * 1.137

  Acts 20.
• † 1.138

  Hom. 32. in Iohan.
• * 1.139

  Can. 6.
• a 1.140

  C. 25.
• b 1.141

  Octauum Can. 7.
• c 1.142

  Epist. 2.
• * 1.143

  Lib. 3. in Lu∣cam. c. 15.
• * 1.144

  Lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.145

  § 13. In pursu∣ance of the Divine in∣stitution, the Apo∣stles did or∣daine Bi∣shops in se∣verall Churches,
• * 1.146

  As S. Iames at Hierusa∣lem.
• * 1.147

  Epist. ad Trall,
• * 1.148

  lib. 2. hist. cap. 1.
• * 1.149

  lib. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.150

  lib. 2. c. 22.
• * 1.151

  lib. 7. c. 46. & lib. 8. cap. ult:
• * 1.152

  Epist. 2.
• * 1.153

  Epist. decret. Vnic:
• * 1.154

  Catech. 4.
• * 1.155

  Catech. 16.
• * 1.156

  lib: 2. cont. lit: Peti••▪ c. 51. & lib: 2. cont: Crescon: c. 37.
• * 1.157

  lib: de Script. Eccles. in Iacobo.
• a 1.158

  homil: 38. in 1. Cor. 15. & 33. hom: in 15. Act.
• b 1.159

  haeres. 66.
• c 1.160

  in 1. Ga∣lat.
• d 1.161

  cap. 33.
• * 1.162

  homil. 3. in Act.
• * 1.163

  haeres. 78.
• * 1.164

  S. Simeon to be his successor,
• * 1.165

  lib. 3. hist. cap. 11.
• * 1.166

  lib 4. cap. 22.
• * 1.167

  haeres. 66.
• * 1.168

  §14. S. Timothy at Ephesus,
• * 1.169

  2. Tim. 1. 6.
• * 1.170

  1. Tim. 1. 3.
• * 1.171

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.172

  1. Tim. 5. 1.
• * 1.173

  1. Tim. 5. 7.
• * 1.174

  haeres. 75.
• * 1.175

  2. Tim. 4. 2.
• * 1.176

  1. Tim. 5. 20.
• * 1.177

  Vers. 22.
• * 1.178

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.179

  Praefat. in 1. Tim.
• a 1.180

  Contr. haeres.
• b 1.181

  contr Mar∣cion ••. 5.
• c 1.182

  hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 1. Timoth.
• d 1.183

  in 6. cap. in 1. Tim.
• e 1.184

  in 1. Tim. 4. c. & 5. c.
• f 1.185

  haeres. 75.
• g 1.186

  ad Timoth. cap. 4.
• h 1.187

  in Pastor. part. 2. c. 11. Acts. 11.
• * 1.188

  In Titum. & 1. Philip. In 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.189

  Biblioth▪ Pho∣ti••. n. 254.
• i 1.190

  Descript. Eccles.
• k 1.191

  In praefat. in 1. Timoth.
• l 1.192

  De vitâ •• morr•• SS 87, & 88.
• m 1.193

  Lib. 2. c. 34. 2. Tim. 4. 5.
• * 1.194

  In 4. Ephes.
• * 1.195

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37.
• * 1.196

  Lib. 10. tri∣part. hist. cap. 5. Theodoret.
• * 1.197

  1. Tim. 6. 14
• * 1.198

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.199

  §15. S. Titus at Crete.
• * 1.200

  Titus. 1.
• * 1.201

  Advers: Iovi∣nian.
• a 1.202

  cap. 6.
• b 1.203

  can. 17.
• c 1.204

  Epist. 87. ad Episc. Afric.
• * 1.205

  Tit. 3. 10.
• * 1.206

  2. Titus. 15.
• * 1.207

  lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.208

  ubi suprà.
• * 1.209

  in 1. Tim. 3.
• a 1.210

  de Script: Eccl in ••ito.
• b 1.211

  in Sin••psi.
• c 1.212

  de vità & morte. S Sanct.
• d 1.213

  lib. 38. c. 10.
• e 1.214

  apud Oecu∣men. in praefat. in Tit. & in 1. Timoth. 3.
• f 1.215

  in pastor. part. 2. c. 11.
• g 1.216

  Praefat: in 1. Tim. & in 2. Tim. 1.
• h 1.217

  in 1. Tim. 1. & in 2. Tim. 1. 6.
• i 1.218

  in 1. Tit.
• k 1.219

  lib. 2. c. 34.
• l 1.220

  In Synopsi Sacr. Script.
• m 1.221

  ad Paulam & Eustoch.
• n 1.222

  Comment. ad Titum.
• o 1.223

  ibid▪
• * 1.224

  lib. 4. c. 21.
• * 1.225

  §. 16. S. Marke at Alexan∣dria,
• * 1.226

  Acts. 12. & Acts. 13.
• * 1.227

  lib. 2. hist. cap. 17.
• * 1.228

  Epist. ad E∣vagr.
• * 1.229

  de Script: Eccles. & in proëm in Matth.
• a 1.230

  lib. 6. Epist. 371.
• b 1.231

  lib 14. cap 39.
• * 1.232

  In decret. de lib. authent. & apocryph.
• * 1.233

  § 17. S. Linus, and S. Cle∣ment at Rome.
• * 1.234

  lib 3 cap. 3.
• * 1.235

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• a 1.236

  de praescript.
• b 1.237

  lib, 2. contr. Parmen.
• c 1.238

  Epist. 165.
• d 1.239

  de Script. Eccles.
• * 1.240

  § 18. S. Poly∣carpe at Smyrna, & diverse o∣thers.
• * 1.241

  De praescript.
• * 1.242

  De Script. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 35.
• a 1.243

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. & lib. 3. c. 4.
• b 1.244

  Origen. lib. 10. in 16. Rom.
• c 1.245

  S. Ambros. in 4 Coloss.
• d 1.246

  Ignatius E∣pist. ad Ephes. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 35.
• e 1.247

  Arethas in 1. Apocal.
• f 1.248

  Epist. ad Philip. & Theodoret. ib. & in 1. Tim. 3.
• g 1.249

  Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Gal∣lias. So Ruf∣finus reads it. In Galatia, so is intimated in Scripture, and so the Roman Martyrol.
• h 1.250

  Ignatius Epist. ad An∣tioch. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22.
• * 1.251

  In Martyrologio Roman▪
• * 1.252

  lib. 3. cap. 37.
• * 1.253

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.254

  Epist. 42,
• * 1.255

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.256

  § 19. So that E∣piscopacy is at least an Apostoli∣call ordi∣nance:
• * 1.257

  of the same authority with ma∣ny other points ge∣nerally be∣lieved.
• * 1.258

  § 20. And was an office of power and great au∣thority,
• * 1.259

  Vbi supra. apud Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23.
• * 1.260

  §. 21. Not lesse∣ned by the assistance and Coun∣cell of Pres∣byters,
• * 1.261

  Comment. in ep. ad Titum.
• * 1.262

  Ad Nepotian. & de 7. ordin. Eccles.
• * 1.263

  2. Thess. 3. 14.
• * 1.264

  Act. 15.
• * 1.265

  in Act. Apost.
• * 1.266

  Act. 13.
• * 1.267

  Act. 20.
• * 1.268

  Act. 20. 4.
• * 1.269

  vers. 18.
• * 1.270

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.271

  Lib. 3. cap. 14.
• * 1.272

  1. Cor. 5. 3.
• * 1.273

  V. ••.
• * 1.274

  in Ephes. 4.
• * 1.275

  Epist. ad An∣tioch.
• a 1.276

  In 1. Tim. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Homil. 11.
• * 1.277

  § 22. And all this hath beene the saith & practise of Christen∣dome.
• * 1.278

  § 23. Who first distingui∣shed Names used before in common.
• * 1.279

  Epist. ad Co∣rinth.
• * 1.280

  1. Pet. 5. 1.
• * 1.281

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in 1. Phil.
• * 1.282

  In 1. Philip.
• * 1.283

  Pag. 54.
• * 1.284

  1. Timoth, 3.
• * 1.285

  in Ephis. 4.
• * 1.286

  Idem ait S. Dionysius Ec∣cles. hierarch. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.287

  2 Cor. 6. 4.
• * 1.288

  1, Cor. 3. 5.
• * 1.289

  in 1. Philip;
• * 1.290

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.291

  Epist. 59. ad Paulinum.
• * 1.292

  § 24. Appropria∣ting the word Epis∣copus or Bishop to the Su∣preame Church-of∣ficer,
• a 1.293

  Can. 15. & 16.
• b 1.294

  c. 9. & alibi.
• c 1.295

  post advent. Episc. Cypri.
• d 1.296

  advers. Praxeam.
• e 1.297

  lib. 3. c. 59. de vitâ Const.
• * 1.298

  Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Orthod: fide
• * 1.299

  Anno Dom: 257.
• * 1.300

  Epist. ad. Trall.
• * 1.301

  Epist, ad He∣ron.
• * 1.302

  Lib. 7. etymo∣log. c. 12.
• * 1.303

  Rom. 16. 17.
• * 1.304

  § 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church,
• * 1.305

  lib. 3. hist. c. 36.
• * 1.306

  Epist. ad E∣phes.
• * 1.307

  Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24.
• * 1.308

  Can. 6.
• * 1.309

  hist. tripart. lib. 4. c. 29.
• * 1.310

  lib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.311

  Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 18.
• * 1.312

  Epist. 11.
• * 1.313

  § 26. And Do∣ctor.
• * 1.314

  haeres. 75.
• * 1.315

  Epist 59.
• * 1.316

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.317

  lib. 7. c. 19.
• * 1.318

  § 27. And Pon∣tifex.
• 1 1.319

  lib. 8. c. ult. Apost. con∣stitut.
• 2 1.320

  lib. 3. hist. cap. 31.
• 3 1.321

  lib. 9. c. 14. hist. tripart.
• 4 1.322

  lib. 3. c. 21.
• 5 1.323

  lib. 4. c. 20.
• 6 1.324

  Euseb. lib. 6. c. 9.
• 7 1.325

  Eccles. hie∣rarch.
• 8 1.326

  Lib. 7. 12.
• * 1.327

  And Sacer∣dos.
• a 1.328

  Lib. 8. c. 46.
• b 1.329

  Lib. 3. Ep. 1.
• c 1.330

  Lib. 7. c. 28.
• d 1.331

  Lib. de bap∣tism.
• e 1.332

  Epist. 69.
• f 1.333

  Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21.
• g 1.334

  Lib. 3. c. 35.
• h 1.335

  Epist. Com∣provinc. ad S. L••onem.
• * 1.336

  Lib. 4 c. 26.
• * 1.337

  Lib 7. Etymol c. 12.
• * 1.338

  Comment. in 4. Ephes.
• * 1.339

  Quast. Vet. et N. Testam. Qu. 101.
• * 1.340

  In 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.341

  In 4. Ephes.
• * 1.342

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.343

  § 28. And these were a di∣stinct order from the rest.
• * 1.344

  Can. 1. & 2.
• * 1.345

  Lib. 1. ad Par∣men.
• * 1.346

  De vitâ Au∣gust. c. 4.
• * 1.347

  Can. 29.
• * 1.348

  Lib. 7. c. 26.
• * 1.349

  Can. 3. Nicen. Concil.
• * 1.350

  Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart.
• * 1.351

  Lib. 3. tripart. c. 2.
• * 1.352

  Hist. tripart. l. 11. c. 5.
• * 1.353

  Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12.
• * 1.354

  Per Binium Parts.
• * 1.355

  Can▪ 2.
• * 1.356

  § 29. To which the Pres∣byterate was but a degree. Can. 10.
• * 1.357

  Lib. 5. c. 8.
• * 1.358

  Epist. 52.
• * 1.359

  § 30. There be∣ing a pecu∣liar manner of Ordina∣tion to a Bi∣shoprick. Can. Apost. 1, & 2.
• * 1.360

  Epist. Vnic••.
• * 1.361

  Can 4.
• * 1.362

  Can. 19.
• * 1.363

  Can. 12.
• * 1.364

  Can. 4.
• * 1.365

  A. D. 509.
• * 1.366

  Theodoret. l. 9. cap 44.
• * 1.367

  Cap. 1. 2.
• * 1.368

  lib. 6. hist. cap. 33.
• * 1.369

  § 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands,
• * 1.370

  A.D. 555.
• * 1.371

  in libr. Ponti∣ficali. vit. Pelag. 1.
• * 1.372

  Can. 6. Concil. Sardic.
• * 1.373

  Epist. 3.
• * 1.374

  Epist. 84. c. 4.
• * 1.375

  Lib. 1 c. 12. de actis cum Felice Ma∣nich. lib 4. Epist. 2.
• * 1.376

  in 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.377

  de praescript. cap. 32.
• * 1.378

  lib. 4. cap. 23.
• * 1.379

  cap. 1.
• * 1.380

  S. Hieromad Rusticum Narbonens: apud Grati∣an. dist: 95. can: ec••e ego. casus, i••id••
• * 1.381

  The Nicen•• Creed.
• * 1.382

  Haeres 75.
• * 1.383

  § 32. For Bishops had a pow∣er distinct, and Supe∣riour to that of Presby∣ters.
• * 1.384

  As of Ordi∣nation.
• * 1.385

  Eccles. hier. c. 5.
• * 1.386

  Lib. 6. cap 33.
• * 1.387

  Can. 13.
• * 1.388

  tripart. hist. lib 2. c, 12. ex Theodoret.
• * 1.389

  Can: 19.
• * 1.390

  Apud Atha∣nas: Apolog. 2. epist. Presb. & Diacon: Mareotic: ad Curiosum & Philagrium.
• * 1.391

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.392

  Cap. 5.
• † 1.393

  Can. 6.
• * 1.394

  Can. 13.
• * 1.395

  ad Evagrium.
• * 1.396

  homil. 2. in. 1. Tim. 2.
• * 1.397

  Can. 37.
• * 1.398

  Can. 20.
• * 1.399

  haeres. 7 5.
• * 1.400

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33.
• * 1.401

  Can. 45.
• * 1.402

  Cap. 19.
• a 1.403

  Cap. 9.
• b 1.404

  Cap. 2. & 6.
• * 1.405

  Novell: con∣stir. 6. & 1. 23. cap. 16.
• * 1.406

  Cap: 6.
• * 1.407

  Can: 2, & 3.
• * 1.408

  Epist. 33.
• * 1.409

  de Eccles. cap. 11.
• * 1.410

  Danaeus part. 2. Isagog; lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron. repl. fol: 92. im∣press. 1605.
• * 1.411

  Ecclesihist: lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum.
• * 1.412

  Ibidem c. 10. & apud Theodoret. l. 1.
• * 1.413

  Eccles: hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum.
• * 1.414

  § 33. And Con∣firmation,
• * 1.415

  Epist. de Cho∣repisc.
• * 1.416

  Epist. ad Iu∣baian.
• * 1.417

  Apud Sev. Bi∣nium in 1. tom. Concil.
• * 1.418

  Homil. 18. in Act.
• * 1.419

  In cap. 5. de Eccles. hie∣rarch.
• * 1.420

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.
• a 1.421

  De Baptis∣mo.
• b 1.422

  Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent.
• c 1.423

  Epist. 4.
• d 1.424

  Epist. 88.
• e 1.425

  Epist. ad. E∣pis••. German.
• f 1.426

  Lib. 3. ep. 9.
• g 1.427

  Apud Grati∣an. de conse∣crat. dist. 5. can. ut jejuni.
• h 1.428

  Ibid. Can. ut Episcopi.
• i 1.429

  Concil. Hi∣spal. can. 7.
• * 1.430

  vide Anasta. biblioth. prae∣fat. in Can. 8. Synodi.
• * 1.431

  vide Opta∣tum. lib. 2. S. Bernard. in vitâ S Mala∣chiae. Surium. tom. 1. in Febr.
• * 1.432

  dial. adv. Lu∣cifer.
• * 1.433

  Caus. 11. q. 3. can Quod pradecessor.
• * 1.434

  in Ephes. 4.
• * 1.435

  Quaest. 101. Vet. & N. Testam. Ba∣sileae.
• * 1.436

  lib. 3. eist p. 26.
• * 1.437

  Can. 52.
• * 1.438

  Can. 2
• * 1.439

  Can. 20.
• * 1.440

  Can. 1.
• * 1.441

  Epist. 1. ad Decent. Cap. 3.
• * 1.442

  § 34. And juris∣diction,
• * 1.443

  Which they ex∣pressed in attributes of authori∣ty, and great pow∣er,
• * 1.444

  Epist. ad Trallian.
• * 1.445

  lib. 3. epist. ••.
• * 1.446

  lib. 4. cap. 63.
• * 1.447

  lib. 6. hist. cap. 26.
• * 1.448

  Can. 10.
• * 1.449

  lib. 2. adv. Parmen.
• * 1.450

  lib. 6. hist. cap. 26. Homil. 7. in Ierem.
• * 1.451

  Can. 69.
• * 1.452

  Can. 25.
• * 1.453

  hist: tripart: lib. 1. cap. 12.
• * 1.454

  de dignit. sa∣cerdot. c. 2.
• * 1.455

  Cap. 3.
• * 1.456

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.457

  § 35. Requiring Vniversall obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity.
• * 1.458

  Epist. as E∣phes••.
• * 1.459

  Apologia pro Ignatio.
• a 1.460

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 30.
• b 1.461

  De Script. Eccles.
• c 1.462

  Apud Euseb. quem Latine reddidit.
• * 1.463

  Can. 56.
• * 1.464

  Idem videre èst apud Da∣masum. Epist. de Chorepisco∣pis.
• * 1.465

  Can. 19.
• * 1.466

  Can. 20.
• * 1.467

  Epist. ad Ne∣potian.
• * 1.468

  Lib. 5. cap. 28.
• * 1.469

  § 36. Appoint∣ing them to be Iud∣ges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity.
• * 1.470

  Can. 33.
• * 1.471

  Can. 5.
• * 1.472

  Can. 59.
• * 1.473

  Can. 4.
• * 1.474

  Can. 9.
• * 1.475

  Can. 13, & 14.
• * 1.476

  Epist. 10.
• * 1.477

  Epist. 1••.
• * 1.478

  Epist. 12.
• * 1.479

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.480

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.481

  Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 3.
• * 1.482

  Ibid. cap. 4.
• * 1.483

  Advers. Vigi∣lant. Epist. 53.
• * 1.484

  Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.485

  Tripart. hist. lib. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.486

  Can. 4. Ann. Dom. 397.
• * 1.487

  Cap. 2▪
• * 1.488

  Ca. 8.
• * 1.489

  Can. 10.
• * 1.490

  Act. 4. can. 83.
• * 1.491

  Post epist. Ar∣chimandrita∣rum ad Conci∣lium pro Di∣oscori rehabi∣litatione.
• * 1.492

  Concil. Ephes. c. 5.
• * 1.493

  C••p. 15. de co••rept. & gratoâ.
• * 1.494

  Can. 55.
• * 1.495

  Cap. 15. ibid.
• * 1.496

  Novel. con∣stit. 123. c. 11.
• * 1.497

  2. Corinth. 2. 9.
• * 1.498

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.499

  Ca. 9.
• * 1.500

  tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 9.
• * 1.501

  Tripart. hist. lib. 5. c. 35.
• * 1.502

  S. Ambros. E∣pist. lib. 2. Epist. 13.
• * 1.503

  In verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.504

  hist. tripart. lib. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.505

  Can. 39.
• * 1.506

  Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.507

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.508

  Lib. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2.
• * 1.509

  Lib. 10. Ec∣cles. hist. c. ••.
• * 1.510

  Lib. 10. Ec∣cles. hist. cap. 19.
• * 1.511

  Theodor. lib. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.512

  Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25.
• * 1.513

  Homil. 83. in 26. Matth.
• * 1.514

  In 3. partis Supplem. q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep. 75. & Grati∣an. dist. 24. q. 2. c. Si habet sed ibi [Prin∣ceps] non in∣seritur, sed tantùm in glossâ ordina∣riâ.
• * 1.515

  Vide the book of Order of Excomm. in Scotland. & the Hist. of Scotland. Admonit. 2. p. 46. Knox his ex∣hortation to England.
• * 1.516

  § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without E∣piscopall license,
• * 1.517

  Epist. ad Smyrn.
• * 1.518

  Can. Apost. 32
• * 1.519

  Ca. 5. Act. 4.
• * 1.520

  De baptism.
• * 1.521

  De coronâ milit▪ c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom. 11. in 1. Tim. & S. Hi∣eron. dial. adv. Lucifer.
• * 1.522

  Can. 6.
• * 1.523

  Ca. 9.
• * 1.524

  Can. 8. part. 2. Act. 14.
• * 1.525

  Epist. 86.
• * 1.526

  dist. 95. cap. Ecce ego.
• 1 1.527

  Can. 40.
• 2 1.528

  Epist. ad Ephes.
• 3 1.529

  Cap. 24.
• * 1.530

  Lib. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.531

  Ad Rustic. Narbon. dist. 95. can. Ecce ego.
• * 1.532

  ••an. 12.
• * 1.533

  § 38. Reserving Church goods to E∣piscopall dispensati∣on,
• * 1.534

  An. Do••. 589.
• * 1.535

  Cap. 32.
• * 1.536

  Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Cano∣nem.
• * 1.537

  Videatur Con∣cil. Carthag. Graec. can. 36▪ 38. & 41. & Balsam. ibid. & apologia 2. Iustini Mar∣tyris.
• * 1.538

  § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse, or to travell without leave of the Bishop.
• * 1.539

  Vide Concil. Epaun. c. 5. & venet. c. 10.
• * 1.540

  Can. 41.
• * 1.541

  Can. 42.
• a 1.542

  Can. 38.
• b 1.543

  Can. 5.
• * 1.544

  Can. 6.
• * 1.545

  § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased,
• * 1.546

  Can. 31.
• * 1.547

  1. Titus. V: 5.
• * 1.548

  Epist. ad Antioch.
• * 1.549

  Gan. 13.
• * 1.550

  Epist. 61. & 62.
• * 1.551

  Hieron. ad Nepotian.
• * 1.552

  lib. 1. offic. cap. 44.
• * 1.553

  Tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 32.
• * 1.554

  lib. 1. Epist. 5.
• * 1.555

  Epist. 68.
• * 1.556

  homil. 3. in Act.
• * 1.557

  Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sa∣cerd.
• † 1.558

  lib. 2. de offic.
• * 1.559

  Epist. 84. c. 5.
• * 1.560

  Can. 4.
• * 1.561

  Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.562

  Act. 11.
• * 1.563

  Tripart. hist. lib. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.564

  Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.565

  Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.566

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.567

  lib. 3. hist. cap. 11.
• * 1.568

  Tripart. hist. lib. 10. c. 14.
• * 1.569

  vide dist. 63. per tot. Gratian.
• * 1.570

  § 41. Bishops onely did Vote in Councells and neither Presbyters, nor People.
• * 1.571

  Epist. ad Solitar.
• * 1.572

  lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.573

  lib. 5. cap. 23.
• * 1.574

  proëm▪ in lib. de ••ide.
• * 1.575

  lib: 5. cap. 8.
• * 1.576

  Epist. Synod. ad Clerum C. Ptanum. part. 2. act. 3. part. 1▪ c. 32. Vide §. 36. de simil. ferè quaestione in fine.
• * 1.577

  Action. 1. Cox∣cil. Chalced.
• * 1.578

  Concil. Ant••∣siodor. can. 7.
• * 1.579

  Socrat. lib. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.580

  Epist. 3. pe•• Ruffinum.
• * 1.581

  Hebr. 13. 7. & 17.
• * 1.582

  1. Pet. 5. 2.
• * 1.583

  Act. 20.
• * 1.584

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.585

  Lib. 3. de vitâ Constant. lib. de baptis. cap. 18.
• * 1.586

  Epist. 32.
• * 1.587

  Acts 15. 23.
• * 1.588

  Lib. 4. polit. ••. 15.
• * 1.589

  § 42. And the Bishop had a propriety in the per∣sons of his Clerks.
• * 1.590

  Can. 45. Con∣cil. Carthag. 3.
• * 1.591

  Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17.
• * 1.592

  Lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.593

  Athanas. E∣pist. ad vitam ••olitar: agen∣tes.
• * 1.594

  § 43. Their Iu∣risdiction was over many con∣gregations, or Parishes,
• * 1.595

  Lib. 2. hist. cap. 17.
• * 1.596

  apud Binium. tom. 1. Concil.
• * 1.597

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37.
• * 1.598

  lib. 2. contr. Parmeniam.
• * 1.599

  lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. Vide Baron. A. D. 39. n. 10. & B. Rhenan, in notit. provinc. Imperial. in descript. Illyrici.
• * 1.600

  Can. 17.
• † 1.601

  Can. 38.
• * 1.602

  Can. 6.
• * 1.603

  lib. 5. ca. 23.
• * 1.604

  Action. 7.
• * 1.605

  Epist, ad Le∣on. 1.
• * 1.606

  Episc. Rom. Haeres. 68.
• * 1.607

  Concil Chal∣ced act. 16.
• † 1.608

  Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28.
• * 1.609

  Apud. S. Hie∣ron. haeres. 69.
• * 1.610

  Lib. 4. c. 12, Encom. Cypri∣an.
• * 1.611

  S••Zom. lib. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.612

  Vide apud Eu∣seb. lib. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.613

  Can. 56.
• * 1.614

  Can. 6.
• * 1.615

  Lib. 5. c. 16.
• † 1.616

  Lib. 5. cap. 4.
• * 1.617

  Ius Graecc∣Rom. p. 89.
• * 1.618

  Vide Baron. An. Dom. 205 n. 27.
• † 1.619

  Lib. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.620

  Gennad. apud Hieron.
• * 1.621

  Iohan. de Trit∣tenheim de script. Eccles.
• * 1.622

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.623

  Lib. 10, Eccles. hist.
• * 1.624

  Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33.
• * 1.625

  In 1. Cor. 12.
• * 1.626

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphan. hae∣res. 66. n. 6. Possidon. in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8.
• * 1.627

  Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21.
• * 1.628

  Lib. 4. cap. 15.
• † 1.629

  Lib. 4. Epist. 2.
• * 1.630

  Lib. 2. c. 11.
• a 1.631

  In 1. Philip.
• b 1.632

  in 1. Phi∣lip.
• c 1.633

  in 1. Phi∣lip.
• d 1.634

  in 1. Phi∣lip.
• e 1.635

  lib. 2. contr. Parmen.
• f 1.636

  in 1. Tim. 3. & in 1. Phil.
• * 1.637

  Concil. An∣tioch. ca. 9.
• * 1.638

  Epist. 1. ad Iacobum Fra∣trem Domini.
• * 1.639

  vide Concil. Chalced. act. 1. in epist. Theod. & Valentin. Imp.
• * 1.640

  §. 44. And was ayded by Presbyters but not im∣payred.
• * 1.641

  in Epist. ad Titum. cap. 1.
• * 1.642

  Epist. ad Antioch.
• * 1.643

  Epist. 21.
• * 1.644

  Ad Trallian. Ad Magnes.
• * 1.645

  Epist. 6.
• * 1.646

  Epist. 19.
• * 1.647

  Epist. 18.
• * 1.648

  in 1. ad. Titum.
• * 1.649

  Ius Graeco Rom. pag. 556.
• * 1.650

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.651

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.652

  ibidem.
• * 1.653

  Epist. 52.
• * 1.654

  Epist. 72.
• * 1.655

  In 1. Timoth. 3.
• * 1.656

  1. Tim. 1.
• * 1.657

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.658

  In Isaiae. 3.
• * 1.659

  Can. 6.
• * 1.660

  Can. 20.
• * 1.661

  § 45. So that the govern∣ment of the Church by Bishops was belie∣ved neces∣sary.
• * 1.662

  Epist. ad Tral.
• * 1.663

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.664

  Epist. 27. & alibi.
• * 1.665

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.666

  vide Concil. Byzacenum. An. Dom. 504. & Surium die 1. Ianuar. & Baron. in A. D. 504.
• * 1.667

  Epist. 2.
• * 1.668

  advers. Luci∣fer. cap. 4.
• * 1.669

  § 46. For they are schis∣maticks that sepa∣rate from their Bi∣shop.
• * 1.670

  Epist. ad Magnes.
• * 1.671

  Ad Ephes.
• * 1.672

  S. Cyprian. ep. 55.
• * 1.673

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.674

  Act. 4.
• * 1.675

  §. 47. And Here∣ticks▪
• * 1.676

  haeres. 75.
• * 1.677

  Can. 6.
• * 1.678

  lib. 2. decret. cap. 226.
• * 1.679

  lib. 18. ca. 45 Eccles. hist.
• * 1.680

  lib. 8. cap. 5. Etymol.
• * 1.681

  vbi suprà.
• * 1.682

  Can. 12.
• * 1.683

  Epist. 3.
• * 1.684

  §. 48. And Bi∣shops were alwaies in the Church, men of great Ho∣nour.
• * 1.685

  Can, 10. Graec.
• * 1.686

  Epist. •• ad lacobum.
• * 1.687

  Apocal. 1.
• * 1.688

  1. Corinth. 4.
• * 1.689

  Iohn 10.
• * 1.690

  In Titum.
• * 1.691

  Matth. 20.
• * 1.692

  Mark 10.
• * 1.693

  Luke 22.
• * 1.694

  Matth. 23. 8, 9. 10.
• * 1.695

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.696

  Luke 22.
• * 1.697

  John 13.
• * 1.698

  In locis ubi suprà.
• * 1.699

  Gen. 1.
• * 1.700

  Psal. 110.
• * 1.701

  Psal. 2.
• * 1.702

  homil. 6. in Isai.
• * 1.703

  S. Bernard. lib. 10. de con∣fiderat.
• * 1.704

  lib. 19. de ci∣vit. Dei. cap. 19.
• * 1.705

  De Vnitat▪ Ec∣cles.
• * 1.706

  Acts. 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13.
• * 1.707

  lib. 3. cap. 23.
• * 1.708

  Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen.
• * 1.709

  Theodo et. lib. 5. ••. 9.
• * 1.710

  Theodor. lib. 4. cap. 9.
• * 1.711

  Thedor. lib. 1. c. 4. &c. 5.
• * 1.712

  Athanas. A∣polog. 2.
• * 1.713

  Epist. 17. 18. 19. apud. S. Augustin.
• * 1.714

  in Psal. 13. apud Baron. A••. Dom. 5••. n. 2.
• * 1.715

  1. Thessal. 5. 13.
• * 1.716

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.717

  Epist. decret.
• * 1.718

  Epist. ad Hero••.
• * 1.719

  Vrban. ibid.
• * 1.720

  Epist. ad Mag••es.
• * 1.721

  §. 49. And trusted with af∣fayres of Secular in∣terest.
• * 1.722

  1. Cor. 6.
• * 1.723

  In hunc Iocum.
• * 1.724

  Vide etiam August. de opere Mo∣nach. ca. 29.
• * 1.725

  Can. 7. Latin.
• * 1.726

  Vide Zonar∣••n Can. A∣postol.
• * 1.727

  Concil. Chal∣ced. Act. 15. can. 3.
• * 1.728

  Can. 14.
• * 1.729

  Epist. 66.
• * 1.730

  Vide Synod. Roman. sub Sylvestr. c. 4. Concil. Chal∣ced. c. 26. & Zonar. ibid.
• * 1.731

  Justin. Mar∣tyr. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.732

  Apud Bur∣chard lib. 2. decret. cap. 99.
• * 1.733

  Part. 2. Act. 15. Can. 7.
• * 1.734

  Can. 20.
• * 1.735

  Epist. a•• Ephes.
• * 1.736

  Sozoo•• lib. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.737

  Tripart. hist. lib. 7. cap. 8.
• * 1.738

  S. August. lib. 6. Consess. cap. 4.
• * 1.739

  Epist. 110.
• * 1.740

  Epist. 147.
• * 1.741

  deepore Mo∣nach. cap: 29.
• * 1.742

  Tripart. hist: lib: 4. cap. 25.
• * 1.743

  lib: 10. cap: 6. ibid.
• * 1.744

  lib. 11. cap. 8. ibid.
• * 1.745

  lib. 5. Epist. Ambros. 33. Euseb: lib. 8. cap. 1.
• * 1.746

  Epist. 84.
• * 1.747

  In 1. Corinth. 6.
• * 1.748

  2. Timoth. 2. 4.
• * 1.749

  §. 50. And there∣fore were inforced to delegate their pow∣er and put others in substituti∣on,
• * 1.750

  Eccles. hierdr. 6. 5.
• * 1.751

  2. Timoth. 4. v. 9. & 12.
• * 1.752

  Philip. 2. v. 25. 26.
• * 1.753

  Epist. ad Antioch.
• * 1.754

  Can. 56.
• * 1.755

  Epist. 9.
• * 1.756

  Epist. 38. & 39.
• * 1.757

  haeres. 68.
• * 1.758

  Concil. Hispal. cap. 6.
• * 1.759

  §. 51. But they were ever Clergy∣men, for there ne∣ver was a∣ny lay El∣ders in any Church of∣fice heard of in the Church. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37.
• * 1.760

  Concil. Hispa••. ubi suprà.
• * 1.761

  Epist. ad Iacob. Fratr. Dom.
• * 1.762

  de 7. Ordin. Eccles.
• * 1.763

  Epist. 13. ad Valent.
• * 1.764

  Epist. ad Solitar.
• * 1.765

  Suidas in vit•• Leontij.
• * 1.766

  Can. 9. A. D. 453.
• * 1.767

  Novell. con∣stit. 123.
• * 1.768

  lib. 7. epist. 66.
• * 1.769

  Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1. Tim. 5. 1. & lib. 1. de offic. c. 20. S. Au∣gust. lib. 3. contra Cres∣con. & Epist. 137.
• * 1.770

  1. Tim. 5. 17.
• * 1.771

  §. 48. lib. 5: cap. 22.
• * 1.772

  Rom. 16.
• * 1.773

  1. Epist. cap. 3.
• * 1.774

  Cap. 3. adv. haereses.
• * 1.775

  Cap. 14.