Symbolon theologikon, or, A collection of polemicall discourses wherein the Church of England, in its worst as well as more flourishing condition, is defended in many material points, against the attempts of the papists on one hand, and the fanaticks on the other : together with some additional pieces addressed to the promotion of practical religion and daily devotion / by Jer. Taylor ...

OF THE SACRED ORDER and OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY, BY Divine Institution, Apostolical Tradition, and Catholick practice, &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 mischiefs, hath endeavour∣ed to be curiously compendious, and with Tarquins device, putare sum∣ma papaverum. And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs, it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge, Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium. The Priests, but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all, Tolle impios, 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 Saint Peter and Saint Paul to Saint Sylvester, thirty three Bishops of Rome, in immediate succession, suffer∣ed an Honourable, and glorious Martyrdom, unless * 1.1 Meltiades be perhaps excep∣ted, whom Eusebius, and Optatus report to have lived all the time of the third Con∣sulship of Constantine and Lucinius. Conteret caput ejus, was the glorious promise, Christ should break the Devils head, and though the Devils active part of the Duel was far less, yet he would venture at that too, even to strike at the heads of the Church, capita vicaria, for the head of all was past his striking now; And this, I say, he offered to do by Martyrdom, but that in stead of breaking, crowned them.

His next onset was by Julian, and occidere Presbyterium, that was his Province. To shut up publick Schools, to force Christians to ignorance, to impoverish and disgrace the Clergie, to make them vile and dishonourable, these are his arts; and he did the Devil more service in this fineness of undermining, than all the open battery of the ten great Rams of persecution. But this would not take. For, that which is without cannot defile a man. So it is in the Church too. Cedunt in bonum, all vio∣lences ab extrá.

But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces; but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces and reunited them at Nice, at Constantinople, at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, at Carthage, at Rome, and in eve∣ry famous place of Christendom, and by Gods goodness, and the Bishops industry Ca∣tholick religion was conserved in Unity and integrity. Well; however it is, Anti∣christ must come at last, and the great Apostasie foretold must be, and this, not with∣out means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity. When ye hear of wars, and rumors of wars, be not afraid (said our Blessed Saviour,) the end is not yet. It is not War that will do this great work of destruction, for then it might have been done long ere now. What then will do it? We shall know when we see it. In the mean time when we shall find a new device, of which indeed the platform was laid, in Aerius and the Acephali, brought to a good possibility of com∣pleating a thing, that whosoever shall hear, his ears shall tingle, an abomination of de∣solation standing where it ought not, in sacris in holy persons, and places, and offices, it is too probable that this is the preparatory for the Antichrist, and grand Aposta∣sie.

For if Antichrist shall exalt himself above all that is called God, and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such, Dii vocati, Dii facti, I think we have great rea∣son to be suspicious, that he that devests both of their power (and they are, if the King be Christian, in very near conjunction,) does the work of Antichrist for him; especially if the men, whom it most concerns, will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted, is that Kingdom by which he governs all Christendom (so themselves have taught us) so that in case it be proved, that Episcopacy is that government, then they (to use their own expressions) throw Christ out of his Kingdom; and then, either they leave the Church without a head, or else put Antichrist in substitution.

We all wish, that our fears in this and all things else, may be vain, that what we fear may not come upon us; but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner, and preparatory to the great Apostasie, I have these reasons to shew, at least the proba∣bility. First, Because here is a concurse of times; for now after that these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together, our expectation of the Great revelation is very near accomplishing; and what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government, contrary to the faith and practice of Christendom, may portend now in these times, when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed, is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry. Secondly, Episcopacy, if we consider the final cause, was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresie. So * 1.2 S. Hierome, In toto orbe de∣cretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris Electus superponeretur caeteris, VT SCHISMA∣TVM SEMINA TOLLERENTVR. And therefore if unity and division be destructive of each other, then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism: and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ: for Schism is a division for things either personal or accidental, which are matters most properly the subject of government, and there to be tried, there to receive their first and last breath, except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude; and Episcopacy is an Unity of person-governing, and ordering persons and things, accidental and substantial: and therefore a direct confronting of Schism, not only in the intention of the author of it, but in the nature of the institution. Now then, although Schisms always will be, and this by divine prediction (which clearly shews the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy, and the intention of its perpetuity, either by Christ himself ordaining it, who made the pro∣phecy, or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least, who knew the prophecy:) yet to be sure, these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostasie; for then, were not the hours turned into minutes, an universal ruine should seize all Christendom [No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened.] Is it not next to an evidence of fact, that this multiplication of Schisms must be re∣movendo prohibens? and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism, either tying their hands behind them, by taking away their coercion, or by putting out their eyes, by denying them cognizance of causes spi∣ritual, or by cutting off their heads, and so destroying their order. How far these will lead us, I leave to be considered. This only; Percute pastores, atque oves di∣spergentur; and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one, I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shep∣herd.

I am not new in this conception, I learn'd it of S. Cyprian; Christi adversarius, & Ecclesiae ejus inimicus ad hoc,* 1.3 ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatio∣ne persequitur, ut, Gubernatore sublato, atrocius, atque violentius circa Ecclesiae naufra∣gia grassetur. The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop, that having taken him away, he may without check pride himself in the ruines of the Church; and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops, he says, that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur, their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed.

But be this conjecture vain or not, the thing of it self is of deep consideration, and the Catholick practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy, that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture, or a clear revelation proved by Miracles, or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves, or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages.

But before I begin, methinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possiden∣tis, it is a considerable Question; what will the adversaries stake against it? For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good, they lose the benefit of their

prescribed possession. If it can; I fear they will scarce gain so much as the obedi∣ence of the adverse party by it, which yet already is their due. It is very unequal; but so it is ever, when Authority is the matter of the Question. Authority never gains by it; for although the cause go on its side, yet it loses costs and dammages; for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries, lose something of it self, or, if it asserts it self to the utmost, it is but that seldom 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 huc deventum est. Now we are in we must go over.

SECT. I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church.

FIRST then, that we may build upon a Rock. Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his Authority, according to his Laws, and by the assistance of the blessed Spirit.

1. If this were not true, how shall the Church be governed? For I hope the adver∣saries of Episcopacy, that are so punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground, will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity, as is the Form of the Go∣vernment of Christs Church. And if for our private actions, and duties Oeconomical, they will pretend a text, I suppose, it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government, insomuch as all Laws intend the publick, and the general directly; the private, and the particular, by consequence only and comprehension within the general.

2. If Christ himself did not take order for a Government, then we must derive it from humane prudence, and emergency of conveniences, and concurse of new circum∣stances, and then the Government must often be changed, or else time must stand still, and things be ever in the same state and possibility. Both the Consequents are ex∣tremely full of inconvenience. For if it be left to humane prudence, then either the go∣vernment of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of souls, or if it be, that such an institution, in such immediate order to eternity, should be depen∣dant upon humane prudence, it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat, that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do. But if there be often changes in government Ec∣clesiastical (which was the other consequent) in the publick frame I mean, and con∣stitution of it; either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise, or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation, which, in matters of Religion, is good for nothing, but to make men distrust all; and, come the best that can come, there will be so many Church-Governments, as there are humane Prudences. For so (if I be not mis-informed) it is abroad in some Towns that have discharged Episcopacy.* 1.4 As Saint 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 Schaff-hausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much, but in the Huguenot Churches of France, the Ministers do all.

3. In such cases, where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory (and con∣fessedly of all sides there can be none in Causes and Courts Ecclesiastical) if there be no opinion of Religion, no derivation from a Divine authority, there will be sure to be no obedience, and indeed nothing but a certain publick, calamitous irregularity. For why should they obey? Not for Conscience, for there is no derivation from Divine authority. Not for fear, for they have not the power of the sword.

4. If there be such a thing as the power of the Keys, by Christ concredited to his Church, for the binding and losing Delinquents and Penitents respectively on earth, then there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church; for here is the delegation of Judges, Tu Petrus, vos Apostoli, whatsoever ye shall bind; Here is a compulsory, ligaveritis; Here are the causes of which they take cognizance, quodcunque; viz. in materiâ scandali. For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite

Matth. 16. and Universal, John 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam, in causes which are emergent from Christianity, ut sic, that secular jurisdicti∣ons may not be intrenched upon. But of this hereafter. That Christ did in this place erect a Jurisdiction, and establish a government (besides the evidence of fact is gene∣rally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers,) affirming, that to Saint Peter the Keys were given, that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated.

Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae, ut quae solveret in terrâ, soluta essent in coelo; scil. ut quisquis in Ecclesia ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet, seque ab iis cor∣rectus averteret, in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sa∣naretur.

So * 1.5 S. Austin. And again, Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus insepara∣biliter pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda & solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit; Quoniam nec ille solus, sed universa Ecclesia ligat, solvitque peccata. Saint Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing. But not he alone but all the Church, to wit, all successi∣on, and ages of the Church. Vniversa Ecclesia, viz. in Pastoribus solis, as * 1.6 Saint Chryso∣stom, In Episcopis & Presbyteris, as * 1.7 S. Hierome. The whole Church, as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters. The same is affirmed by (a) 1.8 Tertullian, (b) 1.9 S. Cyprian, (c) 1.10 S. Chrysostom, (d) 1.11 S. Hilary, (e) 1.12 Primasius, and generally by the Fathers of the elder, and Divines of the middle ages.

5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the Son of Man, and commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch, the Disciples asked him, Speakest thou this parable to us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his 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 designation my stewards, to feed my ser∣vants, to govern my house.

6. In Scripture, and other Writers, to Feed, and to Govern, is all one when the office is either Political,* 1.13 or Oeconomical, or Ecclesiastical. So he Fed them with a faithful and true heart, and Ruled them prudently with all his power. And Saint Peter joyns 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 together,* 1.14 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So does Saint 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. i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euripides calls the Governours and Guides of Chariots, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great Shepherd of our souls; and that we may know the intentum of that compellati∣on, it is in conjunction also with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He is therefore our Shepherd, for he is our Bishop, our Ruler, and Overseer. Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church, it is also as certain he hath left Rulers, they being both one in name, in person, in office. But this is of a known truth to all that understand either Laws or Languages: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith * 1.15 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.

SECT. II. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ.

THIS Government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself, in traditione clavium, in spiratione Spiritûs, in missione in Pentecoste. When Christ promised them the Keys, 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 faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made Rulers over his Houshold. * 1.16 But I shall not labour much upon this. Their founding all the Churches from East to West, and so, by being Fathers, derived their authority from the nature of the thing, their ap∣pointing Rulers in every Church, their Synodal Decrees de suffocato & Sanguine,

and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, their excommunications of Hymeneus and Alexander, and the incestuous Corinthian, their commanding and requi∣ring obedience of their people in all things, as Saint Paul did of his subjects of Corinth, and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical, their threatning the Pastoral rod, their calling Synods and publick Assemblies, their ordering Rites and Ceremonies, composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity, their publick reprehension of Delinquents, and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency, and superiority of jurisdiction.

SECT. III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate.

THIS Power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons; For when the Great Shepherd had reduced his wandring Sheep into a fold, he would not leave them without guides to govern them, so long as the Wolf might possibly prey upon them, and that is, till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats. And this Christ intimates in that promise, Ero vobiscum (Apostolis) usque ad consummationem seculi. Vobiscum; not with your persons, for they dyed long ago, but vobiscum & vestri simi∣libus, with Apostles to the end of the world. And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual, Christ gave them a power of ordination, that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary; something ordinary. Whatsoever was extraordinary, as immediate mission, unlimited jurisdiction, and miraculous operations, that was not necessary to the perpetual Regiment of the Church, for then the Church should fail when these priviledges extraordinary did cease. It was not therefore in ex∣traordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance; not in speaking of tongues, not in doing miracles, whether in materiâ censurae, as delivering to Satan; or, in materiâ misericordiae, as healing sick people; or in re naturali, as in re∣sisting the venome of Vipers, and quenching the violence of flames; in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance, for then it had been done, and still these signs should have followed them that believe. But we see they do not. It follows then, that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world, and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty, and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that, in which Christ promised perpetual assi∣stance. For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons, who in few years were to forsake the world, it must needs be understood of their function, which either it must be succeeded to, or else it was as temporary as their persons. But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate. Now what is this ordinary Office? Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a help for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of sence, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptizing, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were ne∣cessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that were ne∣ver Christned, nourished up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without cal∣ling of God and ordination, have their sins pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sons of a Church, whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Go∣vernour. These the Apostles had without all question, and whatsoever they had they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these then were the offices of the Apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy.

SECT. IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops.

FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these Offices, and therefore (though in a very limited sence) they may be called successores Apostolorum, to wit, in the power of Baptizing, consecrating the Eucharist, and Preaching (an excellent example whereof, though we have none in Scripture, yet if I mistake him not, we have in Ignatius, calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Combination of Apostles) yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which are ordinary and perpetual, are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often used in common to signifie exactly the same ordinary function.

* 1.171. The name was borrowed, from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apo∣stasie of Judas, and Surrogation of Saint Matthias; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His Bishoprick, that is, his Apostolate, let another take. The same word, according to the translation of the seventy, is used by the Prophet Isaiah, in an Evangelical pre∣diction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness. Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos, saith * 1.18 Saint Hierom, herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes. And to this issue it is cited by Saint Cle∣ment in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians. But this is no way unusual in Scrip∣ture, For,

2. Saint James the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle, and yet he was not in the number of the twelve, but he was Bishop of Jerusalem. First, That Saint James was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of Saint Paul: [But other Apostles saw I none,* 1.19 save James the Lords Brother.] Secondly, That he was none of the twelve, appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two James's, The son of Alpheus, and James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John. But neither of these was the James whom Saint Paul calls the Lords Brother. And this Saint Paul in∣timates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the Resurrection.* 1.20 First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the 500. Brethren, then to James, then to all the Apostles. So that here Saint James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles, for there were (it seems) more of that dignity than the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of * 1.21 Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, and S. Hierom. Thirdly, That Saint James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and therefore called an Apostle, appears by the often commemoration of his presidency, and singular emi∣nency in holy Scripture. Priority of order is mentioned, Gal. 2. even before Saint Pe∣ter, who yet was primus Apostolorum, naturâ unus homo, Gratiâ unus Christianus, abun∣dantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus; (as S. Augustin) yet in his own Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him, vers. 9. And when 1 James, 2 Cephas, and 3 John, &c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter. Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Cir∣cumcision; as is to be seen * 1.22 Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address, Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him, where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters, there he was alwayes resident, and his seat fixt, and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together, is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians. But of this hereafter.

3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians. I have sent unto you Epa∣phroditus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.23 My Compeer and your Apo∣stle.* 1.24 Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus, saith Primasius, and what that is, we are told by Theodoret, dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo, quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus? Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them, saith Saint Hierom upon the same place; and it is very observable, that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apostles of Jesus Christ, but those other men which were Bi∣shops of Churches, and called Apostles by Scripture, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apostles of Churches, or sometime Apostles alone, but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none, but James the Lord Brother, Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely. But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ; but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion, writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Further yet: S. Paul, although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate, at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ, yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost, but by Humane constitution, and imposition of hands;* 1.25 in relation to that part of his Office, and his cure of the uncircumcision, he limits his Apostolate to his Dio∣cess, and calls himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Apostle of the Gentiles;* 1.26 as Saint Peter for the same reason, and in the same modification is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision.* 1.27 And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians, who clearly was their Bishop (as I shall shew in the se∣quel) that is, he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi. Paulatim verò tempore procedente, & alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, dicens, necessarium autem existimo Epaphrodi∣tum, &c. So Saint Jerome.* 1.28 In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen, were ordained Apostles; and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance, adding also, that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles.

4. Thus Titus, and some other with him, who came to Jerusalem with the Corin∣thian benevolence, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Apostles of the Churches.* 1.29 Apostles, I say, in the Episcopal sence. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate divine mission, but of Apostolick ordination, they were actually Bi∣shops, as I shall shew hereafter. Titus was Bishop of Crete, and Epaphroditus of Philippi, and these were the Apostles, for Titus came with the Corinthian, Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality. Now these men were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, called, Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions. 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches, to wit, whose alms they carried, but simply 〈 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 related to their mission from these Churches, it is unimagi∣nable that there should be no term of relation expressed. 2. It is very clear that al∣though they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches, yet Saint 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 money,* 1.30 but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem, [If any inquire of Titus— or the Brethren, they are the Apostles of the Church,* 1.31 and the glory of Christ.] So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth, not for their be∣ing imployed in the transportation of their charity. So that it is plain, that their Apo∣stolate 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 Apo∣stolate was a fixt residence, and superintendency of their several Churches.

SECT. V. And Office.

BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet.* 1.32 For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them, which say they are Apostles and are not, and hath found them liars. This Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as Antiquity hath taught us, was at that time

Timothy, or * 1.33 Gaius, 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, and counterfeit himself Saint Paul, or Saint Peter. And if they had, yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case, and whe∣ther it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory. Besides, the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead, and he known to live in Pa••mos, known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam. These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles, must dissemble an ordinary function, not an extraordinary person. And in∣deed by the concurse of story, place, and time, Diotrephes was the Man, Saint John chiefly pointed at. For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd, and Timothy a long while possess'd of it, and * 1.34 perhaps Gaius after him, if we may trust Dorotheus, and the like in some other Churches, and that Saint John had not con∣stituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia, but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself, would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Aposto∣lical ordination, obtruding himself upon the Church of Ephesus, so becoming 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a busie man in anothers Diocess. This, and such Impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try, and discover, and convict, and in it he was assisted by Saint John himself, as is intimated in Saint John's third Epistle written to his Gaius [v. 9.] I wrote unto the Church (to wit of Asia) but Diotrephes who loveth to have the pre∣heminence 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 quarrel for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him; and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction, and excommunication where he had nothing to do, [v. 10.] He forbids them that would receive the Brethren, and casteth them out of the Church. So that here it is clear, this false Apostolate, was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal preheminence and jurisdiction with∣out lawful ordination. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that was his design, He loved to be the first in the Church, esse Apostolum, esse Episcopum, to be an Apostle, or a Bishop.

SECT. VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters.

BUT this Office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy, derives its Fountain from a Rock; Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters. For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching, Vocavit Discipulos suos, & elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos & Apostolos nominavit,* 1.35 saith Saint Luke. He called his Disciples, and out of them chose twelve, and called them Apostles. That was the first election. Post haec autem designavit Dominus & alios septuaginta duos. That was his second election; the first were called Apostles, the second were not, and yet he sent them by two and two.

We hear but of one Commission granted them, which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils, we hear no more of them in the Go∣spel, but that their Names were written in Heaven. We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion, if they can but hold their own. And so we do. For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together, and joyn'd them in Clerical commission by vertue of Christ's first ordination of them, for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded, before we find them doing Clerical offices. Ananias we read bapti∣zing of Saul, Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria, and baptizing his Con∣verts; Others also we find, Presbyters at Jerusalem, especially at the first Councel, for there was Judas sirnamed Justus,* 1.36 and Silas, and Saint Mark, and John (a Presbyter, not an Apostle, as Eusebius reports him) and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem, these and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72. by Eusebius and Dorotheus.

Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries. Apostles and Presbyters, so the Scripture calls them. These were distinct, and not temporary, but succeeded to, and if so, then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders, and yet Deacons neither of them. Here let us fix a while.

SECT. VII. Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary, which to others he gave not.

THEN; It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church, and therefore to be committed to their Successors, which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do.* 1.37 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Saint Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy. The Law of God hath reserved the greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order.

First, The Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations, which the 72. did not, the case is known, Acts 6. The Apostles called the Disciples, willing them to chuse seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poor; They did so, and set them before the twelve Apostles, so they are specified and numbred, vers. 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. They, not the Disciples, not the 72. who were there actually present, and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministery, for they were not now ordained to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the * 1.38 Councel of Constantinople calls them, and that these were the num∣ber of the 72. Disciples, Epiphanius bears witness. He sent other 72. to preach 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.39 of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the Widows. And the same is intimated by Saint Chrysostom, if I understand him right,* 1.40 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. What dignity had these seven here ordained? Of Deacons? No; for this dis∣pensation is made by Priests not Deacons; and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of Saint Chrysostom, pro more suo, adds this,* 1.41 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The name and dignity of these seven was no less, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people. Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact; of the num∣ber of the 72. saith Epiphanius. But however, it is clear that the 72. were present, for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident, they were not yet sent abroad, they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen, [but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples] to them about this affair, vers. 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them.

Secondly, An instance parallel to this, is in the imposition of hands upon Saint Paul and Barnabas, in the first ordination that was held at Antioch.* 1.42 [Now there were in the Church that were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, 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 compleat, and that was said to be done by the Holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch. For they sent them away, and yet the next words are, so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost. So that here was the thing done, and that by the Prophets alone, and that by the command of the Holy Ghost, and said to be his act. Well! but what were these Prophets? They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch, not such as Agabus,* 1.43 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 than ordinary Ministers, for they were Doctors or Teachers, and that's not all, for they were Prophets too. This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery. We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul,* 1.44 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 Saint Paul

there expresses it, next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate missi∣on. And these are therefore Apostles too, Apostles secundi ordinis, none of the twelve, but such as Saint James, and Epaphroditus, and Barnabas, and Saint Paul himself. To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas, for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke, for here it was that Saint Paul, although he had immedi∣ate vocation by Christ, yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles. It is evident then what Prophets these were, they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters, and therefore they imposed hands, and they only. And yet to make the business up compleat, Saint Mark was amongst them, but he imposed no hands, he was there as the Deacon and Minister [vers. 5.] but he medled not, Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets, such as Saint Paul himself was, and so did the Holy Ghost too, but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist, and one of the 72. Disciples (as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus) nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters, that were less than Prophets, that is, who were not more than meer Presbyters.

The sum is this: Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpe∣tuating of a Church, ne gens sit Vnius aetatis, lest it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men, and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters; for the Apostles and Aposto∣lick men did so de facto, and were commanded to do so, and the 72. never did so, there∣fore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct, and superiour to that of Pres∣byters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy, as the Church it self.

SECT. VIII. And Confirmation.

SECONDLY, The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people, and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to, and yet not communicated, nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter. That the Apo∣stles did confirm Baptized people, and others of the inferiour Clergy could not, is be∣yond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians, Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted, and Baptized the Men of Samaria, the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Saint Phi∣lip he was an Evangelist, he was one of the 72. Disciples, * 1.45 a Presbyter; and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows, yet he could not do this, the Apostles must and did. This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands, was not for a miraculous gift, but an ordinary Grace. For Saint Philip could, and did do miracles enough, but this Grace he could not give, the Grace of consigning or confirmation. The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus, Saint Paul confirmed them, giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. The Apostles did it; not the twelve only, but Aposto∣lick men, the other Apostles. Saint Paul did it. Saint Philip could not, nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it, that we find in Holy Scripture.

Yea, but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue, for the Ephesine Chri∣stians received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues and prophesied, which effect because it is ceased, certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired. First. Not for this reason to be sure. For extraordinary effects may be temporary, when the function which they attest may be eternal, and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery. The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles, and extraordinary conversions of people [ut in exordio,

Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus & Spiritûs Sancti gratia, ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci, & praedicantium verbis non esse tar∣diorem audientium fidem,] as * 1.46 Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists; yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are

done, or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle.

The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent, he dyed suddenly, as in the case of Ananias and Saphira, whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery, and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease, it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church. When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner, he was presently de∣livered over to Satan to be buffeted, that is, to be afflicted with corporal punishments, and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommu∣nicate, yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church, and the power of the Keys is not also gone: So also in the power of confirmation, * 1.47 which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing, yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith, these miracles at first did confirm the function, and the faith for ever.

Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people, was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles, appears from these considera∣tions.

First, Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum, the Ho∣ly Ghost in his stead; and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Fa∣ther; This was pertinent to all Christendom, Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem car∣nem, so it was in the Prophecy. For the promise is to you and to your Children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to all them that are afar off,* 1.48 even to as many as the Lord shall call. So it was in the first accomplishing. To all. And this for ever, for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you, and he shall abide with you for ever] for it was in subsidium, to supply the comforts of his desired presence, and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again. Now 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 se∣cond (as it is most certain so) then the main Question is evicted, viz. that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles, which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers, nor of any but themselves and their Colleagues, to wit, Ministerium S. Spiritus, or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands. For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost, to the rest of the faithful after Baptisme, Quod n. nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs impositio tri∣buit singulis, hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio, in credentium populo donavit Vniversis, saith Eusebius Emissenus. Now we find no other way of performing it,* 1.49 nor any ordina∣ry conveyance of the Spirit to all people, but this; and we find that the Holy Ghost actually was given this way. Therefore the effect, to wit, the Holy Ghost being to continue for ever, and the promise of universal concernment, this way also of its com∣munication, to wit, by Apostolical imposition of hands, is also perpetuum ministerium, to be succeeded to, and to abide for ever.

Secondly, This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized peo∣ple is so far from being a temporary Grace, and to determine with the persons of the Apostles, that it is a fundamental point of Christianity, an essential ingredient to its composition, Saint Paul is my Author. [Therefore leaving the principles of the Do∣ctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection,* 1.50 not laying again the foundation of Re∣pentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrines of Baptism, and of lay∣ing on of hands, &c.] Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundati∣on and a principle of Christianity in Saint Paul's Catechism. Now, imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations. First, For Ordination, and secondly, for this whatsoever it is. Imposition of hands for Ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost, but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father. For the Holy Ghost for Ordination was given before the Ascension, John 20. But the promises of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, [the Paraclete, I say, not the Or∣dainer or Fountain of Priestly order, that] was not given till the day of Pentecost; and besides, it was promised to all Christian people, and the other was given only to the Clergy.

* Add to this, that Saint Paul having laid this in the foundation, makes his progress from this to perfection (as he calls it) that is to higher mysteries, and then his dis∣course is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelical, which is Originally in Christ, ministerially in the Clergy; so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress, or imagine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy the foundation of

Christ's Priesthood, and not rather contrary, it is clear that by imposition of hands Saint Paul means not ordination, and therefore confirmation, there being no other or∣dinary ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in holy Scripture. For, as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony, and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it; the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity; and the second is confessedly extraordinary, therefore the ar∣gument is still firm upon its first principles.

3. Lastly, The Primitive Church did de facto, and believed themselves to be tyed de jure to use this Rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism.

* 1.51Saint Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. John had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the Faith of Christen∣dom, Qui (saith S. Clement) eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Do∣mini tanquam perfectâ & tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit. The Bishop first baptized him, then consigned him. Justin Martyr sayes (speaking pro more Ecclesiae, according to the Custom of the Church) that when the mysteries of Baptism were done,* 1.52 then the faithful are consigned, or confirmed.

Saint Cyprian relates to this story of Saint Philip and the Apostles, and gives this ac∣count of the whole affair,* 1.53

Et idcircò quia legitimum & Ecclesiasticum baptismum con∣sequnti fuerant, baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat; Sed tantummodo id quod deerat, id à Petro & Iohanne factum erat, ut oratione pro eis habitâ & manu impositâ invocaretur, & infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Eccle∣siâ baptizantur, Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, ut per nostram orationem ac manûs imposi∣tionem Spiritum S. consequantur, & signaculo Dominico confirmentur.

Saint Peter and Saint Iohn by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after Bap∣tism: 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 obtain the Holy Ghost.

But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christen∣dom, may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus, recorded by Eusebius; in the * 1.54 Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops, under the name of Saint Clement, in the * 1.55 Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr, (a) 1.56 in Tertullian, in (b) 1.57 Saint Austin, and in Saint Cyril of Ierusalem, whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation. This only. The Catholicks, whose Chri∣stian prudence it was, in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks, lest their poyson should infect like a Pest, laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime, He was baptized in his bed, and was not confirmed, Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri, there∣fore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the belief of Christendom, that the Holy Ghost was by no ordinary Ministery given to faithful people after Baptism, but only by Apostolical, or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands.

What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation, and that Bishops only could do it, I shall make evident in the descent of this dis∣course. Here the scene lies in Scripture, where it is clear that Saint Philip, one of the 72. Disciples, as antiquity reports him, and an Evangelist and a Disciple, as Scripture also expresses him, could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Fa∣ther, and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost, but the Apostles must go to do it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle, and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought, and de facto alwayes was continued in the Church. Therefore there must alwayes be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it, that is, an office above Presbyters, for in Scripture they could ne∣ver do it, and this is it which we call Episcopacy.

SECT. IX. And Superiority of Jurisdiction.

THIRDLY, The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church, and each Apo∣stle respectively of his several Diocess, when he would fix his Chair; and had superintendency over the Presbyters, and the people, and this by Christ's donation, the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this. Sicut misit me Pater, sic•• ego mitto vos.* 1.58 As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis,* 1.59 & ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permit∣tentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, said Clarus à Musculâ, the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin. But however it is evident in Scripture, that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy (Presbyters I mean and Deacons) and a superiority of jurisdiction, and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them, for none of the Apostles took this honour, but he that was called of God as was Aaron.

1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis. It was sicut misit me Pater, &c. As my Father sent, so I send. You, my Apostles whom I have chosen. This was not said to Presbyters, for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ, but at their first mission to preach repentance, I say no commission at all, they were not spoken to, they were not present. Now then consider. Sup∣pose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege, another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presby∣ters, what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine instituti∣on of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops? Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach, but that commission was temporary and expi∣red before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture. If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they or∣dained Deacons at Jerusalem, and in all established Churches, and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons, and how can it then for Presbyters? If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us, that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy, and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops; this is true. But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture, and rely upon tradition, which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it, for the same tradition, if that be admitted for good probation, is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters, as will appear in the sequel. 2. Though no use be made of this advantage, yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered, that it can never be proved from Scripture, that Christ made the Apostles Priests first, and then Bishops or Apostles, but only that Christ gave them several commissions, and parts of the Office Apostolical, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of war, and say that the Presbyterate, as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship, is not of Divine institution, the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine instituti∣on of Episcopacy. Especially if we consider, that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices, there is no enumeration of Presbyters, but of Apostles there is;* 1.60 and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity, or parts of the Apo∣stolate, and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of, or none distinct from the Apostolate, insomuch as Apostles were Pastors, and Teachers, and Evangelists, and Rulers, and had the gift of Tongues, of Healing, and of Miracles. This thing is of great consideration, and this use I will make of it: That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters, and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate, as the ancient Church alwayes did believe, or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order. If the second be admitted, then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution, but of Apostolical only, as is the Order of Deacons, and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apo∣stolical alone, and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did Deacons with a less. But if the first be said, then the

commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture, all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance, and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis, yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis, for then they must have made them Apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution nei∣ther.

I care not which part be chosen, one is certain; but if either of them be true, then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power, it follows, that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the Apo∣stles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical; or if they have jurisdiction, they do derive it à fo••te Apostolorum, and then the Apo∣stles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters, because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possi∣bility 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 practice of Christendom, not only that Presbyters were actually subordi∣nate to Bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship) but that Presbyte••s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order, but derivative only from Apo∣stolical preheminence.

2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon Presby∣ters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters, for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest, saith the Law. Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter, and a Bishop Would be, that for his peremptory rejection of some faith∣ful people from the Catholick Communion without cause, and without authority, Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius, 〈 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 coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency.

3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination, as Matthias succeeded Judas, who before his new ordination was one of the 72. as (a) 1.61 Eusebius, (b) 1.62 Epiphanius, and (c) 1.63 S. Jerom affirm, and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus; S. Clement succeeded S. Pe∣ter at Rome, S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem, S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea, and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus, Eusebius, and others of the Fathers, did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death, which before they did not. Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles, than he had under them, can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge, or Churches. It follows then, since (as will more fully appear anon) Presbyters did succeed the Apostles, that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as after∣wards they had. But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to, therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed. When I say Presby∣ters succeeded the Apostles, I mean, not as Presbyters, but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops, so they succeeded, and so they prove an evidence of fact, for a supe∣riority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy. *** Now that this superiority of Ju∣risdiction was not temporary, but to be succeeded in, appears from Reason, and from ocular demonstration, or of the thing done.

1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regi∣ment of the Church, there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession, since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were fore∣told should multiply in descending ages, government and superiority of jurisdicti∣on, unity of supremacy, and coercion was more necessary than at first, when ex∣traordinary gifts might supply, what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority.

2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times, that must be perpetual (not so as to have * 1.64 all that which was personal and temporary, but so as to have no other) for that, and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles, and if the Church be not now governed as then, We can shew no Divine authority for our government, which we must contend to do, and do it too, or be call'd usurpers. For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them, or not. If not, then they failed in the founding of the Church, and the Church is built upon a Rock. If they did (as most certainly they did) then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained, or else we must

be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality, because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution; and then it must needs be a fine govern∣ment, where there is no authority, and where no man is superiour.

3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation. I mean the seven Angel-pre∣sidents of the seven Asian Churches. If these seven Angels were seven Bishops, that is, Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches, in which it is evident and confessed of all sides, there were many Presbyters, then it is certain that a Superiority of Ju∣risdiction was intended by Christ himself, and given by him, insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church; For Christ writes to these seven Churches, and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches, cal∣ling them Angels, which it will hardly be supposed he would have done, if the fun∣ction had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness, they had not else been Angels of light, nor stars held in Christs own right hand.

This is certain, that the function of these Angels (whatsoever it be) is a Divine institution. Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels.* 1.65 [The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches.]

1. Then it is evident, that although the Epistles were sent with a final inten∣tion for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess, with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis] yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church, for the whole Church is called the Candlestick, and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks, but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches, viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks. By the Angel therefore is not, cannot be meant the whole Church.

2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church, First, Be∣cause of the title of eminency, The Angel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Messenger, the Le∣gate, 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 Apostles of the Churches. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and divers others. Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them, and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent, shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively. 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him; as, not to suffer false Apostles; So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum (to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain; as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.66 The first is the office of Rulers, for they watch for your Souls; And the second, of Apostles and Apostolick men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Judas and Silas confirmed the Bre∣thren; for these men, although they were but of the LXXII at first, yet by this time were made Apostles and [chief men among the Brethren] S. Paul also was joyned in this work, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.67 He Went up and down confirming the Churches. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Paul. To confirm the Churches, and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government,* 1.68 these were offices of power and jurisdiction, no less than Episcopal or Apostolical; and besides, the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess [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 An∣gel of Pergamus, and divers others, and therefore they are deposited in his custody. He is to be their Ruler and Pastor, and this is called His Ministery. To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have known thy Ministery. His office therefore was clerical, 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 charged with all.

3. By the Angel is meant a singular person, for the reprehensions and the commen∣dations respectively imply personal delinquency, or suppose personal excellencies. Add to this that the compellation is singular, and of determinate number, so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons, for the seven Churches had but seven stars, and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches. And if

by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars (for so they may if they begin to multiply) then by one star they must mean many stars, and so they may multiply Churches too, for there were as many Churches as stars, and no more Angels than Churches, and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000, as eve∣ry star into a Constellation, or every Angel into a Legion.

But besides the exigency of the thing it self, these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches, and their names are commemorated. Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn, saith Arethas, reckoneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an equal number of Angel-Governours, and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place,* 1.69 saith the very same words, Septem igitur Angelos Rectores sep∣tem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere, eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur, saith S. Am∣brose;* 1.70 and again, Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis. Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels, that is, in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church,* 1.71 for Bishops are the Angels, as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn. Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae, so S. Austin.* 1.72 By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel. Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches. S. Polycarpe was one to be sure, apud Smyr∣nam & Episcopus & Martyr, saith Eusebius. He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna;* 1.73 And he had good authority for it, for he reports it out of Polycrates, who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and he also quotes S. Ire∣naeus for it, and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self, and be∣sides these authorities it is attested by * 1.74 S. Ignatius, and ‖ 1.75 Tertullian. S. Timothy was another Angel, to wit, of the Church of Ephesus; to be sure had been, and most like∣ly was still surviving. Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation, and he had been the Angel of Pergamus,* 1.76 but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint. Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes, & Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ec∣clesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur,* 1.77 saith Eusebius. These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation, for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and writ after the Revelation, for he writ a Treatise of it, as saith Eusebius. However, at least some of these were then, and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches, and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess, therefore these, or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and com∣mendatory letters, such whom Christ held in his Right hand, and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick, that they might give shine to the whole house.

The Summe of all is this; that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters, or 72 Disciples. To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power, for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable; for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders, a power of jurisdiction and au∣thority to govern the Church: and this power was not temporary, but successive and perpetual, and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church, so that the succes∣sors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had, and though the personal mission was not immediate, as of the Apostles it was, yet the commission and institution of the function was all one. But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching, which was a very limited commission. There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended. But yet farther, these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis, and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments, of Absolving 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 Apostles. 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 Holy Ghost, as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration, and particularly the in∣stitution

of the other order, viz. of Deacons. This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters, and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church, and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us, for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution, but the only order that derives immediately from Christ.

For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples. Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis.* 1.78 Nam quan∣quam Christus hos etiam elegit, erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores, & postea illorum Discipuli & sectatores. The Apostles are the twelve fountains, and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains. For though Christ al∣so ordained the LXXII, 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 Igna∣tius are pretended against the main question, viz. to prove that he, although a Bi∣shop, yet had no Apostolical authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.79 I do not com∣mand this as an Apostle, (for what am I, and what is my Fathers house, that I should com∣pare my self with them) but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor. But this answers it self, if we consider to whom he speaks it. Not to his own Church of Antioch, for there he might command as an Apostle, but to the Philadelphians he might not, they were no part of his Diocess, he was not their Apostle, and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary, in their personal priviledges, and in their universal jurisdiction, therefore he might not command the Philadelphi∣ans, being another Bishops charge, but admonish them with the freedom of a Christi∣an Bishop, to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious. So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office, this hinders not, and I know nothing else pretended, and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business.

For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episco∣pacy by arguments derived from Scripture; I shall only add two more from Antiquity, and so pass on to tradition Apostolical.

SECT. X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship, according to the general Tenent of Antiquity.

1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is, that Bishops are the ordinary succes∣sors of the Apostles, and Presbyters of the LXXII, and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate, for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing. For this there is abundant testimony. Some I shall select, enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition.

S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular, Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis,* 1.80 & successores eorum usque ad nos — Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus eti∣am ipsas Ecclesias committebant — quos & successores relinquebant suum ipsorum lo∣cum Magisterii tradentes. We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their seve∣ral Churches, appointing them their successors, and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew, they would deliver to them to whom they com∣mitted the Churches, and left to be their successors in the same power and authority them∣selves had.

Tertullian reckons Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and others to be Church∣es Apostolical, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident.* 1.81 Apo∣stolical they are from their foundation, and by their succession, for the Apostles did found them, and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them.

S. Cyprian; Hoc enim vel maximè, Frater, & laboramus & laborare debemus, ut Vnitatem à Domino,* 1.82 & per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus

obtinere curemus. We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ, and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors. To us Cyprian and Cornelius, for they only were then in view, the one Bishop of Rome, the other of Carthage. And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum;* 1.83 Nec haec jacto, sed dolens profero, cum te Judicem Dei constituas & Christi, Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ or∣dinatione succedunt, qui vos audit, me audit, &c. Christ said to his Apostles, and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church, who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence, He that heareth you heareth me.

Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop, spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin,* 1.84 Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis & ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. Nos successimus. We suc∣ceed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power. He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops, and himself was a Bishop.

The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester, speaking of the honour due to Bishops, expresses it thus, Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis, id est, Apostolorum succes∣soribus detrahere. No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord, that is, from the Apostles successors.

* 1.85S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops, shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring, and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order. Apud nos (saith he) Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Epi∣scopus tertius est. Bishops with us [Catholicks] have the place or authority of Apostles, but with them [Montanists] Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist, pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii, S. Hierome, and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss, Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi, ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant; The Apostles are Fathers, instead of whom Bishops do succeed, whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands. So S. Hierome, S. Au∣stin, and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm aliàs 45.

But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles, which would do very well now also to be considered,* 1.86 Si solis Apostolis dixit, qui vos spernit me spernit, spernite nos; si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos, & vocavit nos, & in eorum loco constituit nos, videte ne spernatis nos. It was good counsel not to de∣spise B••shops, for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and pro∣tect••d by that saying, He that despiseth you, despiseth me. I said it was good counsel, especially if besides all these, we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony, Potestas ana∣thematizandi ab Apost••lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit. A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors, even to Bi∣shops.

* 1.87S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul, Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Epi∣scopi sunt, He hath given Apostles, that is, he hath given some Bishops. That's down∣right, and this came not by chance from him; he doubles his assertion. Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit, qui legati Christi sunt, sicut dicit idem Apostolus [pro quo le∣gatione fungimur.] Ipsi sunt Episcopi, firmante istud Petro Apostolo, & dicente inter cae∣tera de Judâ,* 1.88 & Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. And a third time. Numquid omnes Apo∣stoli? verum est; Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus. Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose, when he spake of their ordinary offices; which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.89 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis of Ephe∣sus 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. An Apostolical presiden∣cy. The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church, as S. Clement his scholar,* 1.90 or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him. Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat, & reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat. He [Peter] said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles, and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples. Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent, for Bishops suc∣cession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office, he may see it in (a) 1.91 Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona, in (b) 1.92 S. Gregory, (c) 1.93 S. Iohn Damascen, in S. Sex∣tus the first his second decretal Epistle, and most plentifully in (d) 1.94 S. Caelestine wri∣ting to the Ephesine Council, in the Epistle of (e) 1.95 Anacletus de Patriarchis &

Primatibus, &c. In (f) 1.96 Isidore, and in (g) 1.97 Venerable Bede. His words are these, Si∣cut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul & demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet: sic & 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est, tametsi primis Ecclesiae tem∣poribus, ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est, utrique Presbyteri, & utrique vocabantur Epi∣scopi, quorum unum scientiae maturitatem, aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat. Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti. As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops; so the 72 of Presbyters, though at first they had names in com∣mon. Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters, and their Prelates or Superiours.

SECT. XI. And particularly of S. Peter.

TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter. So S. Cyprian. Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere & observare debemus, Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio, loquitur & dicit Petro, ego tibi dico, Quia tu es Petrus, &c.* 1.98 Inde per temporum & suc∣cessionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episco∣pos constituatur, &c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and insti∣tuting Episcopal dignity, he said to Peter, thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I build my Church. Hence comes the order of Bishops, and the constitution or being of the Church, that the Church be founded upon Bishops, &c.

The same also S. Jerome intimates, Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Pe∣tri. It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul, to obtain the degree of Peter,* 1.99 so he, while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episco∣pal office. Pasce oves meas, said Christ to Peter, and feed the flock of God which is amongst you, said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta, saith Theodoret.* 1.100 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, Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam & Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit: ita & Basilius, locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans, suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem re∣darguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit. As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira, so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency, for he had the place, liberty, and authority of S. Peter.

Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter, and Gildas sirnamed the wise,* 1.101 saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and un∣clean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter. But this thing is of Catholick belief, and of this use. If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in, and this office Superior to Presbyters, and not only of Divine institution; but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority (as I have proved of the function Apostolical) then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate, have the same institution and authority the Apostles had, as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters, and perhaps more.

For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done. Themselves had the whole Priesthood, the whole commission of the Ecclesi∣astical power and all the offices. Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers, did not in every Ordination give a distinct order, as the Church hath done since the Apostles. For they ordained some to distinct offices, some to particular places, some to one part, some to another part of Clerical imployment, as S. Paul who was an Apo∣stle, yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircum∣cision, so was Barnabas: S. John, and James, and Cephas to the Circumcision, and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment, but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it, a new imposition of hands, as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles. So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of par∣ticular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in. Nay, sometimes their ordinations were on∣ly a delivering of Jurisdiction, when the persons ordained had the order before, as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas. Of the same consideration is the institu∣tion of Deacons to spiritual offices, and it is very pertinent to this Question.* 1.102

For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance; and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized; for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now, and sometimes more, as to Judas and Silas, and divers others, who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used.

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

* Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men, and scattered their power at first, for there was so much imployment in any one of them, as to require one man for one of∣fice; 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 and according to the Exigence of Divine institution, there is Vnum Sacerdotium, one Priesthood ap∣pointed 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 Consecrate, to Absolve, to Minister, yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men, so much less to another, that is only of Apostolical ordinance. For the Apostles might have given to some on∣ly a power to Absolve, to some only to Consecrate, to some only to Baptize. We see that to Deacons they did so. They had only a power to Baptize and Preach, whether all Evangelists had so much or no, Scripture doth not tell us.

* But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys, or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault, and not to consecrate the Eucharist, (for we see these powers are distinct, and not relative and of necessarie conjunction, no more than Baptizing and Consecrating) whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively, whether (I say,) have they the order of a Presbyter? If yea, then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon, for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter, and what is he then by his other power? But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter, then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ, or indeed by the Apostles, that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers, and that these were called Pres∣byters. I only leave this to be considered.

* But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ, and we also find a ne∣cessitie, 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 Ordi∣nation I have proved to be necessary and perpetual.

So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship, mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it, as now it is in the Church; but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception. And to this Bishops do succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from Scripture, and because [no Scripture is of private interpretation] I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers, calling Episcopacie, the Apostolate, and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular, and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII, the Antecessors of the Presby∣terate.

One objection I must clear. For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles, and Successors of the Apostles, as in Ignatius, in Irenaeus, in S. Hierome. I an∣swer.

1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or in∣terpretation of Scripture, as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged; but by allusion and participation at the most. For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing. Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro, but this

is but part of the Apostolical power, and no part of their office as Apostles were su∣periour to Presbyters.

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

3. The places which I have specified, and they are all I could ever meet with, are of peculiar answer. For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, * 1.103 he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests, the Colledge, or combination of Apostles. But here S. Ignatius, as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles, so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God. Episcopus ty∣pum Dei Patris omnium gerit, Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus. So that although Presbyters grow high, yet they do not overtake the Bishops, or Apostles, who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station. This then will do no hurt.

As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, but what Presbyters he means, he tells us, even such Presbyters as were also Bishops, such as S. Peter and S. John were, who call themselves Presbyters,* 1.104 his words are these, Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt. And a little after, Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de qui∣bus & Propheta ait, Et dabo Principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ.* 1.105 So that he gives testimony for us, not against us. As for S. Hierome, the third man, he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops, and that's right enough,* 1.106 for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apo∣stolicae ordinariae, as I have proved he does, then also it is as true of the Bishop toge∣ther with his consessus Presbyterorum. Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Aposto∣los & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes, habere nitantur & meritum, those are his words, and enforce not so much as may be safely granted, for reddendo singula singulis, Bishops succeed Apostles, and Presbyters Apostolick men, and such were ma∣ny that had not at first any power Apostolical, and that's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome. I know nothing else to stay me, or to hinder our as∣sent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged, and the full voice of traditive interpretation.

SECT. XII. And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority.

THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution. In this S. Cyprian is most plentiful. Dominus noster * 1.107 Epis∣copi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio, dicit Petro, &c. Inde per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ec∣clesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos guberne∣tur. Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit, &c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop. Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops, and the Church is built upon them, and every action of the Church is to be governed by them, and this is founded upon a Divine law. Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos, & praepositos Dominus elegit. Our Lord hath chosen Apostles, that is,* 1.108 Bishops and Church-governours. And a little after. Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possu∣mus qui Episcopos facit, possunt & contra nos audere Diaconi, à quibus fiunt. We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops. The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop.* 1.109 Novatianus in Eccle∣siâ non est, nec Episcopus computari potest, qui Evangelicâ & Apostolicâ traditione contem∣ptâ, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est. If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition, for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops, (as S. Cyprian affirms there is, by saying Novatianus contemned it,) then certainly the

same Evangelical 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 Sotion the Dea∣con,* 1.110 〈 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 Jesus Christ, he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie. And a little after. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is home enough. Ye ought to obey your Bishop, and to contradict him in nothing. It is a fearful thing to contradict him: For whosoever does so, does not mock a visible man, but the invisible, undeceivable God. For this contumely relates not to man but to God. So S. Ignatius, which could not be true, were it a humane constitu∣tion 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 obeys the Bishop and Clergy, obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them. This is plain and dogmatical, I would be loth to have two men so famous, so Ancient, and so resolute, speak half so much against us.

* 1.111But it is a general resolve, and no private opinion. For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet, imponens manum Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos. No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches; for before his ascension into Heaven, he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops. But long before him,

* 1.112Hegesippus going to Rome, and by the way calling in at Corinth, and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops, and found them Catholick and Holy, and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius. Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus, vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita om∣nia habebantur, sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit, & Prophetae indicaverunt, Et Dominus Statuit. All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed. All things, therefore both of doctrine and discipline, and therefore the ordinations them∣selves too. Further yet, and it is worth observing, there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester, that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us, but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated, that the order of Bishops did come from God.

* 1.113S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles, saith that with their order of Bishoprick, they have received charisma veritatis certum, a true, and certain or in∣deleble character; secundùm placitum Patris, according to the will of God the Father. And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose,* 1.114 Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis, & quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos Episcopos, singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit. God from whom all good things do come, did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop. And again, Honor igitur, Fratres, & sublimitas Episco∣palis,* 1.115 nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari; Si Regum fulgori compares, &c. And a little after, Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine, cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit, sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio, praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis. The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence, and is by God set over the people, and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right. And in the close of his discourse, Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur, Petre amas me? — repetitum est à Domino tertiò, Pasce oves meas. Quas oves, & quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus, sed & cum illo nos suscepimus omnes. Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed, and in him we (who have pastoral or Episcopal authority) have received the same authority and commission. Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop, and of S. Paul's intimation, that it was by Prophecy, affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost.* 1.116 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Chrysostome, he was ordained by Prophecy, that is, by the holy Ghost. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Oecumenius. By Divine revelation, saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost, so Theophylact; and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus,* 1.117 Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos, the Holy Ghost hath made you Bi∣shops: and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them, and he was a Bishop, and

so were divers others there present; therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty, since a single person was made Bishop by revelation. I might multiply authorities in this particular, which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy, in * 1.118 Origen, in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian, in the collection of the ‖ 1.119 Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis: in the Councils of (a) 1.120 Aquisgrane, and (b) 1.121 Toledo, and many more. The summe is that which was taught by (c) 1.122 S. Sextus, Apostolorum dispositione, ordinante Domino, Epi∣scopi primitùs sunt constituti. The Lord did at first ordain, and the Apostles did so order it, and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution.

These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles, and by consequence to have the same institution, drive all to the same issue, and are suffi∣cient to make faith, that it was the doctrine Primitive, and Catholick that Episcopa∣cy is a Divine institution, which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom, which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost, and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession, unless where God removes the Candlestick, or which is all one, takes away the star, the Angel of light from it, that it may be invelop'd in darkness, usque ad consummationem saeculi & aperturam tenebrarum. The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted,* 1.123 Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti, Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, and Superiour to them by the law of God.

The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition. We have seen what Christ did, now we shall see what was done by his Apostles. And since they knew their Masters mind so well, we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical. Apostoli enim, Discipuli veritatis existentes, extra omne mendacium sunt,* 1.124 non enim communicat menda∣cium veritati, sicut non communicant tenebrae luci, sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum, saith S. Irenaeus.

SECT. XIII. In pursuance of the Divine Institution, the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches.

FIRST then, the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bi∣shop in the chair of Jerusalem. For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed, they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue, (Petrus & Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam, saith Lactantius l. 4. inst.) famines and wars, and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction, which themselves recorded in Scripture. And to say they understood not what they writ, is to make them Enthusiasts, and neither good Doctors nor wise seers. But it is 〈 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 publick affairs, as was so Great desolation, and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church, and to fix it upon its perpetual base. Secondly, The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches. [The word of God went forth into all the world, beginning first at Jerusalem,] and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes, that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine, that they might see from what stars their conti∣nual flux of light must stream. Thirdly, the Apostles were actually dispers'd by per∣secution, and this to be sure they look'd for, and therefore (so implying the necessi∣ty of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways) they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem; there he fixt his chair, there he lived Bishop for 30 years, and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom. If this be proved, we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical.

First, Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture, that may concern this affair. Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem, not disputing, but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision. [And

when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said, &c.] He first drave the question to an issue, and told them what he believed concerning it, with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision, as with our Forefa∣thers who used it. But S. James, when he had summed up what had been said by S. Pe∣ter, gave sentence and final determination. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherefore I judge or give sentence. So he. The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative, they disputed, v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative, but S. James his was decisive; which proves him clearly (if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate) that S. James was the President of this Synod, which consider∣ing that he was none of the twelve (as I proved formerly) is unimaginable, were it not for the advantage of the place, it being held in Jerusalem, where he was Hierosoly∣morum Episcopus, (as S. Clement calls him) especially in the presence of S. Peter, who was primus Apostolus, and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives.

* Add to this, that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle, and to send Judas and Silas, yet because they were of the Presby∣tery, and Colledge of Jerusalem, S. James his Clergy, they are said, as by way of appropriation to come from S. James, Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus, Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo, i. e. à Judaeâ, nam Ecclesiae Hieroso∣lymitanae Jacobus praefuit. To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent, calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James,* 1.125 and in his Epistle to Hero, saying that he did Mi∣nister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem, which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time (who was Suppar Apostolorum, only not a contemporary Bishop) here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair, and Jerusalem the seat of S. James, and the Clergy his own, of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius, he was their Ordinary.

* The second evidence of Scripture is [Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusa∣lem the Brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present.] Why unto James? Why not rather unto the Presbytery, or Colledge of Elders, if James 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 vain and impertinent, see it testified by Antiqui∣ty, to which in matter of fact, and Church-story, he that will not give faith upon current testimonies, and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man, and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself, and can no way prove that him∣self was Christned, and to be sure, after 1600 years there is no possibility to dis∣prove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before, and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory, it being impossible to prove it.

* 1.126Eusebius reports out of S. Clement. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S. Peter and S. John, although they were honoured of our Lord, yet they would not themselves be, but made James, sirnamed the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem; and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebi∣us for his successor Simeon Cleophae, for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom, and immediately the City destroyed, Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune con∣silium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari.* 1.127 It was concluded for Simeon, because he was the Kinsman of our Lord, as S. James also his Predeces∣sor. The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius. Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem — in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit,* 1.128 omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt.

* 1.129In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement, the Apostles are brought in speaking thus. De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ, significa∣mus vobis quòd hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini. S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us [Apostles.] The same is witnessed by Anacletus.* 1.130 Porrò & Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur, & secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater, à Petro, Jacobo, & Johanne, Apostolis, est ordinatus. And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus, with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum,* 1.131 &c. Just as Anacletus before. S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter, James, and Iohn were his Ordainers.

But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair, who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records.* 1.132 S. Cyrill of

Jerusalem is the man. Nam de his non mihi solum, sed etiam Apostolis, & Jacobo hu∣jus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit, speaking of the question of circumcision, and things sacrificed to Idols, and again, he calls S. Iames, primum hujus parochiae Epi∣scopum, the first Bishop of this Diocess.* 1.133

S. Austin also attests this story. Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae, in quâ Petrus sedit, & in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet? Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit,* 1.134 & in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet? I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome, for it will be of great use in the sequel, Iacobus (saith he) post passionem Domini statim ab Apo∣stolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus, and the same also he repeats out of Hegesip∣pus. * 1.135 There are many more testimonies to this purpose, as of (a) 1.136 S. Chrysostome, (b) 1.137 Epiphanius, (c) 1.138 S. Ambrose, the Council of (d) 1.139 Constantinople in Trullo. But Gre∣gorius Turonensis rises a little higher, Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus, ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus. S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself. If by [Ordinatus] he means [designatus] he agrees with S. Chrysostome: But either of them both will serve the turn for the present. But either in one sence or the other it is true, and attested also by Epiphanius, Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs, cui concredidit Dominus thro∣num suum in terra primó. S. James had first the Episcopal chair,* 1.140 for our Lord first intrust∣ed his earthly throne to him. And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses, to all which if we add 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 sence of Scripture and the Catho∣lick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one, it follows from the premisses, (and of them already there is faith enough made) that S. Iames was by Christs own designa∣tion and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem, that is, had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not, and this Apostolate was limited and fixed, as his Successors since have been.

But that this also was not a temporary business, and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles, but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church, it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Succes∣sor. It is witnessed by Eusebius, Post martyrium Iacobi — traditur Apostolos, &c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari;* 1.141 omnes∣que uno consilio, atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs se∣dem susciperet. The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus, posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est — electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur, electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini.* 1.142 S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election; And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem, reckons first Iames, and next Simeon, Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est.* 1.143

SECT. XIV. S. Timothy at Ephesus.

THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus. That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture. For S. Paul imposed hands on him, that's certain, Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum me∣arum, By the laying on of my hands. That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him. First,* 1.144 He was to be * 1.145 resident at Ephesus. And although for the publick necessities of the Church, and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge, yet there he lived and died, as the Church story writes, there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional. And when it was, his cure was supplied by Tychicus, whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar, as I shall shew hereafter.

2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him, gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment, as is plain; A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. Thirdly, S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy. Over the people;* 1.146 〈 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.* 1.147 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is denied to be used towards 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 Budaeus: so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use, either toward Priest or Deacon, Clergy or Laity, Old or Young. [For a Bishop must be no striker.] But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that's given him in commission both to old and young, Presbyters and Catechumens, 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 〉. Chrysostom. Ad precandum vos pro∣voco. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eurip. Thou makest me, or compellest me to shed tears. Suaviter omnia. That's the way S. Paul takes. Meekly; but yet so as to do his office, to keep all in their several duties, and that is by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, command these things, for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters, Neo∣phytes, and Widows. Give all these things in charge, Command all to do their duty. Command,* 1.148 but not objurgate. Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objur∣garet, si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem? So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage. For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given or∣der to Timothy how he should exercise his Jurisdiction over Presbyters and people,* 1.149 if he had had no Jurisdiction and coercive authority at all. Nay, and howsoever Saint Paul forbids Timothy 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,* 1.150 intimating, upon great occasion. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To be sure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if it be but an urging, or an exhortation, is not all, for S. Paul gives him coercive jurisdiction, as well as directive. Over Widows. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Reject the younger widows, viz. à collegio viduarum, ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae. Over Presbyters, for he commands him to have sufficient pro∣bate in the accusation of Presbyters, of which if he was not to take cognizance, it was to no purpose to number witnesses. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Receive not a publick accusation [foro externo] against a Priest. Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum, &c. to wit, in causes criminal. That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power to take cognizance in causes criminal; then for his punishing in such cases,* 1.151 it follows in the next words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Repre∣hend them publickly, that is, disgrace them. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, indecorus. — 〈 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 account, 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 ones life. Idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon con∣viction,

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

But the words in S. Paul will clear the business. Let them that sin be publickly shamed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the rest may fear; A punishment most certainly, some∣thing that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Malum in genere poenae. What else should they fear? to sin? Most true. But why upon this reprehension, if not for fear of being punish∣ed?

Add to all this, that here is in this Chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction, an erection of a Judicatory, and is all the way direction for his proceeding in cases cri∣minal, appears most evidently, v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels, that thou observe these things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without pre∣judging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under publick test of witnesses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doing nothing for favour or partiality. No∣thing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory than these mandates of S. Paul.

Lastly, to make up his Episcopal function compleat, S. Paul gives him also directi∣on concerning giving of orders. [Lay hands suddenly on no man.] Sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri — Nè facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesia∣sticam dignitatem — peccat enim si non probat & sic ordinet.* 1.152 Melior enim caeteris de∣bet probari qui ordinandus est. Haec Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religio∣ni, cujus rei infuturo praemium consequetur. So S. Ambrose upon the place, who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops Consistory, that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the Judicature and coercive Jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy.

Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholick and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul, Sed & Lucas (saith he) in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat, sicut Timothei & Titi,* 1.153 quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus — ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having or∣dained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him,* 1.154 to instruct him in his Episcopal Of∣fice. Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesi∣am ordinare. And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own per∣son, and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop, is the united concurrent testimony of (a) 1.155 S. Vincentius, (b) 1.156 Tertullian, (c) 1.157 S. Chrysostom, (d) 1.158 S. Ambrose, (e) 1.159 Oecumenius, (f) 1.160 Epiphanius, (g) 1.161 Primasius, and (h) 1.162 S. Gregory. As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted, he uses it as an argument against the mad∣ness and stupidity of Aerius 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 general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus; Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From S. Timo∣thy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus. Who desires a multitude of testimonies (though enough already have deposed in the cause, besides the evi∣dence of Scripture) may to these add that saying of S. Chrysostom,* 1.163 that to Timothy was committed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; of Theodoret, calling him Episcopum Asiano∣rum; the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy, (which if it were not writ by S. Paul, yet at least will prove a Primitive record, and very ancient,) the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius, (i) 1.164 S. Hierom, (k) 1.165 S. Theophylact, (l) 1.166 Isi∣dore, and (m) 1.167 Nicephorus.

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

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those are the next words, fulfil thy Deaconship. And therefore he was no Bishop? As well this as the other; for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy, why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it? Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist, as well as his being an Evangelist ex∣clude his being a Bishop? Whether is higher, a Bishoprick, or the office of an Evan∣gelist? 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 Evange∣list can be neither, for that also is thought to be higher than them both. But if the office of an Evangelist be higher, then as long as they are not disparate, much less destructive of each other, they may have leave to consist in subordination. For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment, and a Bishop∣rick of fixt residence, that will be considered by and by.

2. All the former discourse is upon supposition, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 implies the office of a Deacon, and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist. For if we mark it well, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do the work, not the office of an Evangelist. And what's that? We may see it in the verses immediately going before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform, viz. to preach, to be instant in season, and out of season, to reprove, to rebuke, to exhort, there is no harm done, a Bishop may, nay he must do all this.

3. Consider what an Evangelist is, and thence take our estimate for the present. 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist, so the Greek Scholiast calls him. And in this sence indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist, but yet if he had, he might have been a Bishop, because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure, and per∣haps 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 far as con∣cerns our Question. But then again; an Apostle might be an Evangelist, S. Matthew was, S. John was, and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopal preheminence, for I have proved these

two names Apostle and Bishop to signifie all one thing. Secondly, S. Ambrose gives another exposition of [Evangelists] Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus.* 1.168 S. Philip was one of the seven, commonly called Deacons, and he was also a Presbyter, and yet an Evangelist, and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop, or else why are Presbyters cri'd out against so bitterly in all ca∣ses, for non-residence, and yet nothing hinders, but that S. Timothy, as well as S. Phi∣lip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together, and then why not a Bi∣shop too, for why should a Deaconship, or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more than a Bishoprick? Thirdly, Another acceptation of [Evange∣list] is also in Eusebius. Sed & alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli su∣perstites erant — Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae — animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant — ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent,* 1.169 primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes — Evangelistarum fungebantur offi∣cio. They that planted the Gospel first in any Country, they were Evangelists. S. Timothy might b•• such a one, and yet be a Bishop afterwards. And so were some of this sort of Evangelists. For so Eusebius, Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes, atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes, ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant. So that they first converted the Nation, and then governed the Church, first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops; and so was Austin the Monk that converted England in the time of S. Grego∣ry and Ethelbert, he was first our Evangelist, and afterwards Bishop of Dover. Nay, why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time, in∣somuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries, as S. Chry∣sostome in Scythia,* 1.170 S. Trophimus, S. Denis, S. Mark, and many more. By the way only, according to all these acceptations of the word [Evangelist] this office does not imply a perpetual motion. Evangelists many of them did travel, but they were never the more Evangelists for that, but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel, and thence they had their name.

4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary, and take it in either of the two sences of Eusebius or Oecumenius, which are the only true and genuine, was to expire when Christianity was planted every where, and the office of Episcopacy, if it was at all, was to be succeeded in, and therefore in no respect could these be inconsi∣stent, at least, not always. * 1.171 And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him, [to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,] if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules, was to expire long before, is not so easily imagined. For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office, then in no sence, neither in person, nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming, to wit, to judgment. But if he instructed him in the per∣petual office of Episcopacy, then it is easie to understand that S. Paul gave that cau∣tion to Timothy, to intimate that those his directions were not personal, but for his suc∣cessors in that charge, to which he had ordained him, viz. in the sacred order and of∣fice of Episcopacy.

5. Lastly, After all this stir, there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist. So S. Chrysostom, so Theophylact, so the Greek Scholiast.* 1.172 Now though we have no need to make any use of it, yet if it be true, it makes all this discourse needless, we were safe enough without it; if it be false, then it self we see is needless, for the allegation of S. Timothies being an Evan∣gelist is absolutely impertinent, though it had been true.

But now I proceed.

SECT. XV. S. Titus at Crete.

TITVS was also made a Bishop by the Apostles. S. Paul also was his ordain∣er. First, Reliqui te Cretae. There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete. Se∣condly, His work was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to set in order things that are wanting, viz. to constitute rites and forms of publick Liturgy, to erect a Consistory for

cognizance of causes criminal, to dedicate houses for prayer by publick destination for divine service, and in a word, by his authority to establish such Discipline and Ri∣tuals, as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God. For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie, and set things in order, was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie. 2. The next work is Episcopal too, and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City. Not Presbyters collectively in every City, but distributively 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, City by City, that is Elders in several Cities, one in one City, many in many. For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops. Of the identity of Names I shall after∣wards give an account, but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bi∣shops.

1. In terms and express words. [To ordain Elders in every City; If any be the hus∣band of one wife, &c. For a Bishop must be blameless.] That is, the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless, for else they must not be Bishops. 2. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot hinder this exposition, for S. Peter calls himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and S. John, Presbyter electae Dominae, and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio. Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical, and that's as much as Episcopal to be sure. 3. S. Paul adds farther, [a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God. Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler?* 1.173] S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward, and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold, says our blessed Savi∣our himself, and therefore not a meer Presbyter, amongst whom indeed there is a parity, but no superintendency of Gods making. 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers. A Bishop must be no striker, not given to wine. They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts. [If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk, and beat his fellow servants, then the Lord of that servant shall come and di∣vide him his portion with unbelievers.] The steward of the houshold, 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; Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus, sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat, saith S. Hierome: still then these are the Rulers of the Church, which S. Titus was to ordain,* 1.174 and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house, for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God, implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God. 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction, because [many unru∣ly and vain talkers were crept in, verse 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 supe∣riority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers, which to a single Presbyter, either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant, and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it, for himself had given it singly to S. Titus. For I consider,

Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders, be they Bi∣shops, be they Presbyters. The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power, or coercive Jurisdiction, for why then was Titus sent? As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained, before his ordaining them, to be sure they had no power at all, they were not Presbyters. If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards, to wit, by their ordination, then Titus had it before in his own person, (for they that were there before his coming had not, as I shewed) and therefore he must also have it still, for he could not lose it by ordaining others, or if he had it not before, how could he give it unto them whom he ordained? For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest, quam ipse habet.

Howsoever it be then, to be sure, Titus had it in his own person, and then it fol∣lows undeniably, that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church (which would be either to suppose men impeccable, or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibi∣lity of relief) or if it was necessary, then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative, but a power to be succeeded to; he might ordain others, he had authori∣ty to do it, with the same power he had himself, and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person, so should his successors, and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides, nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not, for why then was Titus sent with a new commission, nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it, no more than the Presbyters that were there

before his coming, it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain, be∣ing such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers, and with authority to silence them, (as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle) these Elders (I say) are verily, and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word.

6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming, had not power to ordain others, that is, had not that power that Titus had. For Titus was sent thi∣ther for that purpose, therefore to supply the want of that power. And now, be∣cause to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church, that is, because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world, and meer Presbyters could not do it, and yet this must be done, not only by Titus himself, but after him, it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had, that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters, that is Bishops, and he means them in the proper sence.

7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain 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 Cities, not in village Towns; For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in vil∣lage Towns, as is to be seen in the Councils of * 1.175 Sardis, of ‖ 1.176 Chalcedon, and * 1.177 S. Leo, the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters.

The issue of this discourse is, That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops, himself was a Bishop to be sure, at least. If he had ordained only Presbyters, it would have proved that. But this infers him to be a Metropolitan, forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete, and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him, of his own constitution, and yet of proper Diocesses. However, if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar, it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes, upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter; and at least infers his being a Bishop, if not a great deal more.

Yea; but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters? yes, most certainly. But so he did Deacons too, and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order. For he that ordains a Bishop, first makes him a Deacon, (and then he obtains 〈 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 presupposed in the authorizing the Supream, and by giving dire∣ction for the qualifications of Bishops, he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment, insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher.

2. Add to this, that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or∣dinem generativum Patrum, as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy, and therefore most cer∣tainly with intention, not that it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Manus Mortua, but to pro∣duce others, and therefore Presbyters and Deacons.

3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages, and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute, and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages, and that is of such men as had power to ordain, and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased. For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters, as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there, where most certainly many Presby∣ters before were actually resident, if Presbyters had gone to Villages, they must have left the Cities destitute, or if they staid in Cities, the Villages would have perished, and at last, when these men had died, both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf, for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first genera∣tion.

But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders, and institu∣tion,* 1.178 [A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject.] Cogni∣zance of Heretical pravity, and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus. For first he is to admonish him, then to reject him upon his pertinacy, from the Catholick communion. Cogere autem illos videtur, qui saepe corripit, saith S. Ambrose, upon the establishing a coactive, or coercive jurisdicti∣on over the Clergy and whole Diocess.

But I need not specifie any more particulars, for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.179 all authority and power. The consequence is that which S. Ambrose pre∣fixes to the Commentary on his Epistle. Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum,

& ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione, id est, ad quosdam qui si∣mulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, simulque & haere∣ticos ex circumcisione corripiendos.

And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of an∣tiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete.* 1.180 Sed & Lucas (saith Eusebius) in actibus Apostolorum — Timothei meminit & Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus: alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur. That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly,* 1.181 Titum Apostolus consecravit Epi∣scopum, The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop; and Theodoret calling Titus, Cretensium Episcopum, The Bishop of the Cretians.* 1.182 And for this reason saith 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 (a) 1.183 S. Hie∣rome, in (b) 1.184 Dorotheus, in (c) 1.185 Isidore, in (d) 1.186 Vincentius, in (e) 1.187 Theodoret, in (f) 1.188 S. Gre∣gory, in (g) 1.189 Primasius, in (h) 1.190 Sedulius, (i) 1.191 Theophylact and (k) 1.192 Nicephorus. To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objecti∣ons by the clearer testimony of (l) 1.193 S. Athanasius, (m) 1.194 S. Jerome, the Syriack transla∣tion, (n) 1.195 Oecumenius and (o) 1.196 Theophylact, no confident denial can ever break through, or scape conviction.

And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here; for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist, he is not called so in Scripture, and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop, and the nature of his offices, the eminence of his dignity, the superiority of jurisdiction, the cognizance of causes criminal, and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop. But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist, I would fain know who succeeded him? or did all his office expire with his person? If so, 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 than before, and governed the Churches which before they did not, then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance, much less is it a divine right, for it is postuate to them both. But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him, how then could they succeed him? There was indeed a dereliction of the authority, but no succession. The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons, not by a Colledge, for so we find in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 recorded by Eusebius, that in Gnossus of Crete, Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop, and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna; Sed & Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit, saith Eusebius. But of this enough.* 1.197

SECT. XVI. S. Mark at Alexandria.

MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed, one that writ the Gospel, and he was a Bishop of Alexandria. In Scripture we find nothing of him, but that he was an Evangelist, and a Deacon, for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas, when they went to the Gentiles, by ordination and special design∣ment made at Antioch;* 1.198 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They had John to be their Minister; viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke, which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome; but many other things, their founding of divers Churches, their ordination of Bishops, their journeys, their persecutions, their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded, and relye upon the faith of the Primitive Church. And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Lukes story, for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero's reign, five or six years before the death of S. Paul. Igitur Neronis primo Imperii anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexan∣driam 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. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters, is not so soon to be contrived. But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs. Quod post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Eccle∣siae ordinatus sit Anianus, Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark. * And Philo the Jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria, called by the inhabitants, Cultores, and Cultrices, The worshippers, Addit autem adhuc his (saith Eusebius) quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua, vel quae sit supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes, intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia, a height above all imployments, established at Alexandria; and how soon that was, is soon computed, for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time, and was Embassador to the Emperor Cai∣us, and survived S. Mark a little.

* 1.199But S. Jerome will strike up this business. A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri Aegypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. And again, Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus. The same is witnessed by * 1.200 S. Gregory, ‖ 1.201 Ni∣cephorus, and divers others.

Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts, as innumerable multitudes of things more, and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Pe∣ter, nothing of S. James the son of Thaddaeus, nor of Alpheus, but the Martyrdom of one of them, nothing of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, of Simon zelotes, of S. Jude the Apostle, scarce any of their names recorded, yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records, which all Christendom hitherto, so far as we know, hath ac∣knowledged as authentick, and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apo∣stolical, being done in the Apostles times, to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited, they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches be∣fore their death, as here at Alexandria, first S. Mark, then Anianus, made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul. But yet who it was that or∣dained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria (for Bishop he was most certainly) is not ob∣scurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council,* 1.202 Mar∣cus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit, & gloriosè consum∣mavit Martyrium. S. Peter sent him into Aegypt to found a Church, and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment, and that could be no less than the ordinary power Apostolical.

SECT. XVII. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome.

BUT in the Church of Rome, the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and their successions during the times of the Apostles, is very manifest by a concur∣rent testimony of old writers. Fundantes igitur, & instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesi∣am Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui & vidit ipsos Apostolos, & contulit cum eis, cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum, & traditionem ante oculos habe∣ret.* 1.203 So S. Irenaeus. * 1.204 Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gal∣lias esse praefectus. Linus vero & Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse. Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles, as of (a) 1.205 Tertullian, (b) 1.206 Optatus, (c) 1.207 S. Augustin, and (d) 1.208 S. Hierom. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish, and be tedious in a thing so evident and known.

SECT. XVIII. S. Polycarp at Smyrna, and divers others.

S. JOHN ordained S. Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna — Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia ha∣bens Polycarpum ab Johanne collocatum refert;* 1.209 sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, proinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum consti∣tutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. So Tertullian. The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarp was placed there by Saint John, as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter; and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops. Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus — sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus — & testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes, & qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo, &c. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome, and * 1.210 Eusebius: Quoniam autem valde longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare, to use S. Irenaeus his expression; It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands, as (a) 1.211 Dio∣nysius the Areopagite at Athens, (b) 1.212 Caius at Thessalonica, (c) 1.213 Archippus at Colosse, (d) 1.214 Onesimus at Ephesus, (e) 1.215 An••ipas at Pergamus, (f) 1.216 Epaphroditus at Philippi, (g) 1.217 Crescens among the Gaules, (h) 1.218 Evodias at Antioch, * 1.219 Sosipater at Iconium, Erastus in Macedonia, Trophimus at Arles, Jason at Tarsus, Silas at Co∣rinth, Onesiphorus at Colophon, Quartus at Berytus, Paul the Pro∣consul at Narbona, besides many more whose names are not re∣corded in Scripture, as these fore-cited are, so many as * 1.220 Euse∣bius counts impossible to enumerate; it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their Acts and Ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers, saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches, that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first Ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick, and their adversaries, who could not do so, to be Here∣tical: This also is very evident, and of great consideration in the first Ages while their tradition was clear and evident, and not so be-pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks, striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes.

Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per succes∣siones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, aut Apostolicis viris habuerit authorem & antecessorem, hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt, &c.* 1.221 And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles, nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius. Hâc ordinatione (saith he) & successione, & ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio & veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos; & est plenissima haec ostensio unam & eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, & tradita in veritate. So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination, must of it self be a very certain thing, when the Church made it a main probation of their faith; for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together, and generally received as yet. Now then, since this was a main pillar of their Christianity, viz. a constant re∣ception of it from hand to hand, as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair, till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them, this (I say) being their proof, although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved, which in that case was a Divine revelation, yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact, and known almost by evidence of sense, and as verily believed by all, as it was by any one that himself was baptized, both relying upon the report of others. * 1.222 Ra∣dix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum, & successiones Episcoporum, certâ per or∣bem propagatione diffunditur, saith S. Augustin. The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world, by the successions of Apostles and Bishops.

And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing, no succession of Bi∣shops in the Churches Apostolical, no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles, and so (as S. Paul's phrase is) overthrow the faith of some, even of the Primitive Christians,

that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people?* 1.223 It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus, Habe∣mus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos, We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches; and of this we are sure enough, if there be any faith in Christians.

SECT. XIX. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance. Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed.

THE summe is this. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institu∣tion of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock, yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance, and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is. For, for that in the new Testament we have no precept, and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day, and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Syna∣gogues, but yet (however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting, to have shown their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday-Festival less than an Apo∣stolical ordinance: and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed.

* Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordi∣nary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptizing infants upon them, if we speak of immediate Divine instituti∣on, or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture, and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination, and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in Scripture, than the baptizing of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confi∣dently condemned for Hereticks.

* Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity, as the Presby∣ters consecrating the Eucharist; for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church, Clergy and Laity, when Christ said [Hoc facite, do this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then do all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels, limiting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Clergy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church, and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be, by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected.

* To these I add the communion of Women, the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical, that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles, the whole tradition of Scripture it self, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution, must needs prevail as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and divers others of greater consequence (which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood) relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance) and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Chri∣stian, whose Master is truth it self.

SECT. XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority.

WHAT their power and eminence was, and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles, appears also by the testimonies before alledged, the expressions whereof run in these high terms. Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino. Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church, Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens, they were both Prefects of the Church, or Prelates, that's the Church-word. Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur, so Ti∣tus, he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete. In celsiori gra∣du collocatus, placed in a higher order or degree, so the Bishop of Alexandria, chosen ex Presbyteris, from amongst the Presbyters. Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis, so Philo of that Bishoprick, The seat of Episcopal 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 amiss; to silence vain prating Preachers, that will not submit to their superiors, to ordain elders, to rebuke delin∣quents, to reject Hereticks, viz. from the communion of the faithful (for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks, but that it was in his power to eject them? And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people) but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal, and particular of Presbyters, (so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged) nay, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all authority, so in the case of Titus, and officium regendae Ecclesiae, the office of ruling the Church, so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded. So Eusebius. For the Bishop was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set over all,* 1.224 Cler∣gy and Laity, saith S. Clement.

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

SECT. XXI. Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters.

BUT a Council, 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 ruled without him. * 1.225 This indeed will call us to a new account, and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom, which I will set down here, that we may leave the Sun without a cloud. S. Jerome's words are these.

Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus, & antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Ce∣phae, communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unus∣quisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ut Schismatum semina tolle∣rentur.

Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying, and summes them up thus:

Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, & ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quàm Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores: & in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, &c.

The thing S. Hierome aims to prove, is the identity of Bishop, Presbyter, and their government of the Church in common. * For their identity, It is clear

that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia, one power; for else he contradicts himself most apert∣ly, for in his Epistle ad Evagrium, Qu••d facit (saith he) Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat? A Presbyter may not ordain, a Bishop does, which is a clear difference of power, and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right [quod Presbyter non faciat] not [non facit;] that a Priest may not, must not do that a Bishop does, viz. he gives holy orders. * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common, but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess, there∣fore he asserted it as much as he could; And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary, and by actu∣al indulgence, or incroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original right, S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come. And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intend∣ed it only to be a difference in fact, not in right (for so some of late have muttered) then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles, for [Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat?] had been quickly answered, if the Question had only been de facto; for the Bishop governed the Church alone, and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact at least, S. Hierome says it, and the Bishop took so much power to himself, that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus, without leave of the Bishop,* 1.226 and this S. Hierome complained of; so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference: That then (if Saint Hierome says true) being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop, must be meant de jure, in matter of right, not humane positive, for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which 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 own confession cannot be meant in respect of order, but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyte∣rate.

* Add to this, that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters. To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and some others, but all driving to the same issue. To what? Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters; For who doubts that? But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration, and needs a proof, and this he undertook. Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects. An identity, at least of Names, for else it had been wholly impertinent. A disparity, or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem, which were a business next to telling pins. Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate; If jurisdiction too, I am content, but the former is most certain, if he stand to his own prin∣ciples.

This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter, must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction. I know not certainly which he means, for his ar∣guments conclude only for the identity of Names, but his conclusion is for identity of Ju∣risdiction, Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere, is the intent of his discourse. If he means the first, viz. that of Names, it is well enough, there is no harm done, it is in confesso apud omnes, but concludes nothing (as I shall shew hereafter) but because he intends (so far as may be guessed by his words) a parity and concurrence of Ju∣risdiction, this must be considered distinctly.

1. Then; In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing, preaching, consecrating and re∣conciling in privato foro, but did not in every Church at the first founding it, constitute a Bishop. This is evident in Crete, in Ephesus, in Corinth, at Rome, at An∣tioch.

2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands [There comes upon me (saith S. Paul) daily the care or supravision of all the Churches.] Not all absolutely, for not all of the Circumcision, but all of his charge, with which he was once charged, and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And again [If any man obey not our word,* 1.227 〈 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 clearly kept the power in his own hands. So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority.

3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coerci∣tive jurisdiction in publick, and criminal causes, nor yet power to ordain Rites or Cere∣monies, or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer 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 express delegation of Apostolical authority (tanquam vicario suo, as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle) to inflict any censures, or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis, but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination, or any commis∣sion from Christ or his Apostles.

This we may best consider by induction of particulars.

1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem, but they had a Bishop always, and the Col∣ledge of the Apostles sometimes, therefore whatsoever act they did, it was in conjun∣ction with, and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles. Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem, and also had power alone to govern the Church. I say they had power to govern alone, for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters, that is, before there were any of capacity to joyn with them, they must do it themselves, and then also they must retain the same power, for they could not lose it by giving Orders. Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction, then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of go∣verning as affixed to their Order, they only assisting in subordination, and by depen∣dency.

This only by the way; In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than or∣dinary, and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word. For Barnabas, and Judas,* 1.228 and Silas [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 S. Luke calls them] were of that Presbytery. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They were Rulers, and Prophets, Chief men amongst the Brethren, and yet called Elders or Presbyters, though of Aposto∣lical power and authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.229 saith Oecume∣nius. For truth is, that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction, not fixed upon any See, that they also might, together with the twelve, exire in totum mundum. * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas, men of Apostolical power, and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve, and with the Bishop, they were of equal power, not by vertue of their Presbyterate, but by their Apostolate; or if they were but meer Presbyters, yet because it is certain, and proved, and confes∣sed, that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone, this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis, was a voluntary act, and from this example was deri∣ved to other Churches, and then it is most true, that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesi∣am regere, was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae, dominicae dispositionis veritate, (to use S. Hierom's own expression) for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere cae∣teris, by custom rather than Divine institution. For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone, then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a volunta∣ry act of the Apostles, and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain, and circumstances concur, yet not necessary, because not affixed to their Order; not Dominicae dispositionis veritate, and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes.

2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch, but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction, but of ordination indeed we do, and that performed by such men as S. Paul was, and Barnabas,* 1.230 for they were two of the Prophets reckon∣ed in the Church of Antioch, but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place, to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word; as I proved formerly.

3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters, and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops, and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God. This must do it or nothing. In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos,* 1.231 In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. There must lye the exigence of the argument, and if we can find who is meant by [vos] we shall, I hope, gain the

truth. * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. **It's true, but that's not all the [vos.] For there were present at that Sermon Sopater, and Aristarchus, and Secundus, and Gaius, and Timo∣thy,* 1.232 and Tychicus, and Trophimus; And although he sent to Ephesus, as to the Metro∣polis, and there many Elders were either accidentally, or by ordinary residence, yet those were not all Elders of that Church, but of all Asia, in the Scripture sence, the lesser Asia. For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates [Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia,* 1.233 after what manner I have been with you at all seasons.] His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus, and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all, and therefore were of dispersed habitation, and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God, &c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present, and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant.

Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations.

1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture, particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter, as it is contended for on one side, and granted on all sides, then where both the words are used, what shall determine the signification? For whether (to instance in this place) shall Presbyter limit Episcopus, or Episcopus extend Presbyter? Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop, as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, where-ever Presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sence, and not to do so with Episcopus, and when they are joyned together, rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter, than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms. These men sent for from Ephesus, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elders or Presbyters of the Church, but at Miletus, Spiritus S. posuit vos Epi∣scopos, there they are called Bishops or overseers. So that I may as well say here pro∣perly so called Bishops, as another may say, here were meer Presbyters. * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative, that they could not be Bishops, because they were of Ephesus, there never being but one Bishop in one Church; I answer, that in the Apostles times this was not true. For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority, and so at Antioch; as at Jerusalem, where James, and Judas, and Silas, and the Apostles, and Paul and Barnabas at Anti∣och, 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 secondly, All these were not of Ephesus, but the Elders of all Asia, but some from other Countries, as ap∣pears ver. 4. So that although they were all Bishops, we might easily find distinct Dio∣cesses for them, without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incum∣bency. Thus far then we are upon even terms▪ the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence.

2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon, for S. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony, and many of those which are reckoned ver. 4. were companions of the Apostle in his jour∣ney; and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches, and particular∣ly Sosipater was there, and he was Bishop of Iconium, and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythi∣nia,* 1.234 as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness; and Trophimus of Arles in France, for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters, for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception,* 1.235 the ancient S. Irenaeus, In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis, & Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso, & à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere, &c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem, at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities. * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke, and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed, and taught with Pastoral supravision, but in the mean while here is no commission of power, or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly, nor supposition of any such praeexi∣stent 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 verse 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 Ephe∣sus and the vois••••age, viz. in a collective sence, not in a distributive, for each

of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels; but this was not spo∣ken to Sopater the Berean, or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus, and Trophimus, who were Asians, it might be addressed. And for that of vers. 25. [Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more,] this was di∣rected only to the Asians, for he was never more to come thither; but Timothy, to be sure, saw him afterwards, for Saint Paul sent for him, a little before his death, to Rome, and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him. So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting, as most certainly there was, and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides, how shall it be known, or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers. 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei, does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters, and not particularly to Timothy, who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus, and to Gaius, and to the other Apostolical men, who had at least Episcopal authority, that is, power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited juris∣diction.

4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo, or concredited de novo, or if there be, it is in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vers. 28. Bishops and Feeders; and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with, and subor∣dination to the Bishops, for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain, by any intimation of that place.

5. How and if these Presbyters, which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia, were made Bishops at Miletus? Then also this way all difficulty will be re∣moved. And that so it was is more than probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See; and it was consonant to the practice of the Apo∣stles, and the exigence of the thing it self, when they were to leave a Church, to fix a Bishop in it; for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches, but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence, and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought. And the case was equal here, for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more; and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds, and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus, and it is unimaginable, that he would not make equal provision for other Churches, there being the same necessity from the same dan∣ger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never; and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks, is plain, for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus, Antipas was dead, and Saint Ti∣mothy had sat in Ephesus, and Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation.

6. Lastly, That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters, except a delegate, and subordinate, appears beyond all exception, by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy, esta∣blishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters, and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him, for ought appears either there or elsewhere.

* 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear. For what power had they of Jurisdiction? For that is it we now speak of. If they had none before Saint Titus came, we are well enough at Crete. If they had, why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it? Or if he did not, to what purpose did he send Ti∣tus with all those powers before mentioned? For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming, or they had not. If they had not, then either they had no jurisdiction at all, or whatsoever it was in sub∣ordination to him, they were his inferiours, and he their ordinary Judge and Gover∣nour.

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

* This is it that I said before, that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop, for in this case of the Co∣rinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge. [For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already] and then secondly,* 1.236 Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause [in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit,* 1.237 that

is, My power, My authority, for so he explains himself, my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver him over to Satan. And 3. As all this power is delegate, so it is but declarative in the Corinthians, for Saint Paul had given sentence before, and they of Corinth were to publish it. 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly, and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people, and so some have contended; but so it is, but will serve neither of their turns, neither for an in∣dependent Presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant, I have often heard it confidently averred, but never could see ground for it. The suspicion of it is ver. 2. [And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned; that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you] Taken away. But by whom? That's the Question. Not by them, to be sure. For taken away from you, implies that it is by the power of another, not by their act, for no man can take away any thing from himself, He may put it away, not take it, the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning. * Well then: In all these instances, viz. of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Crete and Co∣rinth (and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question) all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bi∣shop, or in the Bishop when there was any: And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary assuming them, in par∣tem sollicitudinis, and by delegation of power Apostolical, or Episcopal, and by way of assistance in acts deliberative, and consiliary, though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem, where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters, men of Apostolical authority. But here lies the issue and strain of the Question.

Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal, and pertaining to the publick Re∣giment of the Church, by vertue of their order, or without particular substitution, and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters, no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presby∣tery; no constitution Apostolical, that meer Presbyters should either alone, or in con∣junction with the Bishop, govern the Church; no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters, either upon Clergy or Laity; no specifica∣tion of any power that they had so to do; but to Churches where Colledges of Presby∣ters were resident, Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination; not only with power of imposition of hands, but of excommunication, of taking cognisance even of cau∣ses and actions of Presbyters themselves, as to Titus, and Timothy, the Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt, as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified, which delegation was needless, if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter, or a whole Colledge of them.

Now then, return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying: The Church was governed (saith he) communi Presbyterorum consilio, by the common Councel of Presbyters. But,

1. Quo jure was this? That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters, by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms; but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles, and Bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine dispositi∣on? Saint Hierom does not say but it was. For he speaks only of matter of fact, not of right: It might have been otherwise, though de facto it was so in some places.

* 2. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is true in the Church of Jerusalem, where the Elders were Apostolical men, and had Episcopal authority and something su∣peradded, as Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas, for they had the authority and power of Bishops, and an unlimited Diocess besides, though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth. But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop, who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction, and therefore does clearly evince, that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them.

* 3. [Communi Presbyterorum consilio] is also true, because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters, as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles. Now at the first, many Prophets, many Elders (for the words are sometimes used in common) were for a while resident in particular Churches, and did govern in common;

As at Antioch were Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Paul, Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all these were Presbyters, in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were, and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem.

* 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine, yet this not being by any divine Ordinance, that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church, neither by any imitation of Scripture,* 1.238 nor by af∣firmation of S. Hierom, it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose, Post∣quàm omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae, & officia ordinata, aliter composita res est quam coeperat. 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 its own, nor Crete, and there was no need, for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them, and S. John, and other of the Apostles, but yet af∣terwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither; for when themselves were to go away, the power must be concredited to another; And if they in their absence before the con∣stituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters, yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles, and by substitution, not by any ordinary power, and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle, or the sending of a Bishop to reside. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.239 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted, he writ to his Presbyters, Do you feed the Flock amongst you, till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler, viz. My Successor. No longer. Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes.

* 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse, viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition; I answer, that this is true in this sence, Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters, such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as S. Peter and S. John, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all, and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence, that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction.

* Secondly, S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence, [Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters,] viz. quoad exercitium actûs, that is, they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons, but may asci∣scere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium, they may delegate jurisdiction to the Pres∣byters; and that they did not so, but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time, this is it, which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dis∣pensation, for it was otherwise at first, viz. de facto, and might be so still, there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal. * As for the last words in the Objection, [Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere,] it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own; for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names, and common Regiment de facto, not de jure, and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet, is a Non sequitur, unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments, that is, they ought not by God's Law, but in imitation of the practice Apostolical; to wit, when things are as they were then, when the Presbyters are such as then they were; they ought, for many considerations, and in great cases, not by the necessity of a precept.

* And indeed to do him right he so explains himself, [Et in communi debere Eccle∣siam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret.] The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop, for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses, who might have ru∣led alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himself only to rule in chief. Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do, but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them, and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then, yet it is necessary at no time, and was not followed then, and to be sure is needless now. * 1.240 For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention, what ever it is, I have and shall elsewhere produce, for they yield many other consi∣derations than this collection of S. Hierome, and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate. The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom: It is needless to repeat either the Objection, or Answer.

* But however this saying of S. Hierome, and the parallel of S. Chrysostom, is but like an argument against an evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party, or to run upon their

own Swords; For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated, and then they are impertinent, or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Ca∣tholick antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches.

I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place. Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, & diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephae, in toto orbe de∣cretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ut schismatum semina tollerentur. That is, a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times, that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them, viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge. This I say was in the Apostles times, even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism, for then they said I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and then it was, that he that baptized any Catechumens, took them for his own, not as Christ's Disciples. So that it was, tempore Apostolorum, that this decree was made, for in the time of the Apostles S. James, and S. Mark, and S. Timothy, and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation; It was also [toto orbe decretum] so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institu∣tion, yet it could not have gone much less, it being, as I have proved, and as S. Hierom acknowledges, Catholick and Apostolick. *

SECT. XXII. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom.

BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ, is an Apostolical precept. We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ, how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution: Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles, as the Apo∣stles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the power and order of Episcopacy. And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopal to a primitive consistence, and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church, who have a venerable estimate of the publick and authorized facts of Catholick Christendom.

* For consider we, Is it imaginable, that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves, and not ea quae sunt Jesu Christi; to erect a government of their own devising, not ordained by Christ, not delivered by his Apostles, and to relinquish a Divine foundation, and the Apostolical superstructure, which if it was at all, was a part of our Masters will, which whoso∣ever 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 Genti∣lism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity, without evidence of Miracle, and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles, should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity, make an Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will, and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity, for he that erects another Oeconomy than what the Master of the Family hath ordained, destroyes all those relations of mutual dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it, and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family?

* Is it imaginable, that all those glorious Martyrs, that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions, and Canons Apostolical, that so long as that Ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force, they would rather die than eat a strangled Hen, or a Pudding, (for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particu∣lar instance of Biblis and Blandina) that they would be so sedulous in contemning the Government that Christ left for his Family, and erect another?

* To what purpose were all their watchings, their Banishments, their fears, their fastings, their penances and formidable austerities, and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes, of what excellency or avail, if after all they should be hurried out of this world, and all their fortunes and possessions, by untimely, by disgraceful, by dolorous deaths, to be set before a Tribunal, to give account of their universal

neglect, and contemning of Christ's last Testament; in so great an affair, as the whole government of his Church?

* If all Christendom should be guilty of so open, so united a defiance against their Master, by what argument or confidence can any misbeliver be perswaded to Christia∣nity, which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution, as in its most publick affair, and for matter of order of the most general concernment, is so contrary to the first birth?

* Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance, of the impregnable per∣manence of the Church against the gates of Hell, of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth, if she be guilty of so grand an error, as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level, or appointed others to sit in it than whom he suffers. * Either Christ hath left no government, or most certainly the Church hath retained that Go∣vernment whatsoever it is, for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident, or the Catholick Church extreamly negligent (to say no worse) and incurious of her depositum. * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom (if there were no more in it) I * suppose we may fairly venture. Sit anima mea * cum Christianis.

SECT. XXIII. Who first distinguished Names used before in common.

THE First thing done in Christendom, upon the death of the Apostles in this mat∣ter of Episcopacy, is the distinguishing of Names, which before were common. For in holy Scripture all the names of Clerical offices were given to the superiour Or∣der, and particularly all offices, and parts, and persons designed in any imployment of the sacred Priesthood, were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium. And therefore lest the confusion of Names might perswade an identity, and indistinction of office, the wisdom of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations. [For the Apostles did know by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the name of Episcopacy,] saith S. Clement, and so it did in the Church of Corinth,* 1.241 as soon as their Apostle had ex∣pired his last breath. But so it was.

1. The Apostles, which I have proved to be the supream ordinary office in the Church, and to be succeeded in, were called in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elders or Presby∣ters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Saint Peter the Apostle,* 1.242 the Elders, or Presbyters that are among you, I also who am an Elder, or Presbyter, do intreat. Such elders S. Peter spoke to, as he was himself, to wit, those to whom the Regiment of the Church was committed; the Bishops of Asia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithy∣nia, that is, to Timothy, to Tychicus, to Sosipater, to the Angels of the Asian Churches, and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office, 〈 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 warned them of tyranny, that had no rule at all. * The mere Presbyters, I deny not, but are included in this admoni∣tion; for as their office is involved in the Bishops office, the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too, so is his duty also in the Bishops; so that, pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition. But again. * 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Saint John the Apostle; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Presbyter to Gaius; The Presbyter to the elect Lady.

2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters, no harm though Bishops be called so too, for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly. Thus are those Apostolical men in the Colledge at Jerusalem called Presbyters, whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, principal 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 Apo∣stle had concredited the Church of Ephesus, and the neighbouring Cities, ut solus

quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus, as appears in the former discourse. The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, and yet the same men are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The one place expounds the other, for they are both ad idem, and speak of Elders of the same Church.

* 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters, yet even in Scripture names are so di∣stinguished, that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops, unless it be in conjunction with Bishops, and then in the General address, which, in all fair deportments, is made to the more eminent, sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended. This observation if it prove true, will clearly show, that the confusion of names of Episco∣pus, 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 self are so distinguished, that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop, but a Bishop and 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 en∣terfere upon the main Question, nor this observation. * Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints which are in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. I am willinger to chuse this instance, because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question, and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disad∣vantage.

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

1. Then; By [Bishops] are, or may be meant the whole superiour 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 superi∣our, the lesser within the greater; for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order, and is not only inclusively in it, but derivative from it; the same name may comprehend both persons, because it does comprehend the distinct offices and or∣ders of them both. And in this sence it is (if it be at all) that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops.

* 2. Why may not [Bishops] be understood properly; For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church; It can neither be proved from Scripture, nor Antiquity, if it were denyed: For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch, might do all that Pres∣byters could, and much more. And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply, and a Bishop can, it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter, than that there was no Bishop. And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed, to wit, Presbyters should be only meant, and that which is expressed should not be at all intended.

* 3. [With the Bishops] may be understood in the proper sence, and yet no more Bi∣shops in one Diocess than one,* 1.243 of a fixt residence; for in that sence is Saint Chrysostom and the Fathers to be understood in their Commentaries on this place, affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop; but then take this along, that it was not then unusual in such great Churches, to have many men who were temporary Residen∣tiaries, but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority, as in the Churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch there was, as I have proved in the premises. Nay in Philippi it self, if I mistake not, as instance may be given full and home to this purpose. Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus, Titus, Demas, Polybius, & omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo, unde & haec vobis scripsi, saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon. So that many Bishops, (we see) might be at Philippi, and many were actually there long after Saint Paul's dictate of the Epistle.

* 4. Why may not [Bishops] be meant in the proper sence? Because there could not be more Bishops than one in a Diocess. No? By what Law? If by a con∣stitution of the Church after the Apostles times, that hinders not, but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times. If by a Law in the Apostles times, then we have obtained the main Question by the shift, and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church, although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters. And then let this Objection be admitted how it will, and do its worst, we are safe enough.

* 5. [With the Bishops] may be taken distributively, for Philippi was a Metropolis, and had divers Bishopricks under it, and Saint Paul writing to the Church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit, and therefore might well sa∣lute many Bishops, though writing to one Metropolis, and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius: for he reads it not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Coepiscopis, & Diaconis, Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi, and to our fellow Bishops.

* 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of [Cum Episcopis, & Diaconis] to Saint Paul and Saint Timothy, intimating,* 1.244 that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from Saint Paul and Saint Timothy with ••he Bishops and Deacons, so that the reading must be thus, Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons, to all the Saints at Philippi, &c. Cum Episcopis & Diaconis, hoc est, cum Paulo, & Timotheo, qui utique Epis∣copi erant, simul & significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei. Ad plebem enim scribit. Nam si Episcopis scriberet, & Diaconis, ad personas eorum scriberet, & loci ipsius Episcopo scri∣bendum erat, non duobus vel tribus, sicut & ad Titum & Timotheum.

* 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, which may give another light to this, speaking of the Apostles,* 1.245 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons. Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively, and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church, but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians. For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ministers, or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision, which no man imagines, of what interest soever he be; it follows then that [Bishops and Deacons] are no more but M••jores, and Mi∣nores Sacerdotes in both places; for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded, so also Presbyter and Diaconus; And I think it will easily be shewn in Scripture, that the word [Diaconus] is given oftner to Apostles, and Bishops, and Presbyters, than to those Mini∣sters whi••h now by way of appropriation we call Deacons. But of this anon. Now again to the main observation.

* Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus, for Saint Paul writing to their Bishop, and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church Orders and Offi∣cers, gives directions first for Bishops, then for Deacons.* 1.246 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 appro∣priated to the inferiour Clergy, than Episcopus to the Superiour, nor so much neither. For Episcopus was never used in the new Testament for any, but such as had the care, regiment and supra-vision of a Church, but Diaconus was used generally for all Mi∣nisteries.

But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus, yet it is not because the Offices and Orders are one, but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop. And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal, and the Presbyter is also comprehended, for his conjunction, and involution in the Superiour, which was the Principal observation here intended. Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps est Sa∣cerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministe∣rio Fidelium, saith Saint Ambrose.* 1.247 * 1.248 So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop, he intends to qualifie Presbyters also, then it is principally intended for a Bishop, and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension. This only by the way, because this place is also abused to other issues; To be sure it is but a vain dream, that because Presbyter is not nam'd, that therefore it is all one with a Bi∣shop, when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole, or the in∣feriour within the superiour, (the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Pres∣byter and something more) or else it may be as well intended in the word [Deacons] and rather than the word [Bishop] 1. Because [Bishop] is spoken of in the singu∣lar number, [Deacons] in the Plural, and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters. 2. Presbyters, or else Bishops, and therefore much more Presbyters, are called by Saint 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 ministration ye believed; and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too, for in the Epistle to Titus, Saint Paul describes the office of a Bishop, and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office; and why, I pray, may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted, as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus? or else why may

not Deacons be confounded, and be all one with Bishop, as well as Presbyter? It will, it must be so, if this argument were any thing else but an aery and impertinent no∣thing.

After all this yet it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single and meer Pres∣byter is called a Bishop, but may be often found that a Bishop, nay, an Apostle is called a Presbyter, as in the instances above, and therefore since this communication of Names is only in descension, by reason of the involution, or comprehension of Presbyter within (Episcopus,) but never in ascension, that is, an Apostle, or a Bishop, is often called Presbyter, and Deacon, and Prophet, and Pastor, and Doctor, but never retrò, that a meer Deacon or a meer Presbyter, should be called either Bishop, or Apo∣stle, it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne, or erect meer Presbyters above their Stalls in the Quire. For we may as well con∣found Apostle, and Deacon, and with clearer probability, than Episcopus and Presbyter. For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons. I gave one Instance of this before, but there are very many. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was said of Saint Mat∣thias when he succeeded Judas in the Apostolate.* 1.249 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said Saint Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus. Saint Paul is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Deacon of the New Testament, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is said of the first founders of the Co∣rinthian Church; Deacons by whom ye believed. Paul and Apollos were the men. It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom,* 1.250 〈 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, Fulfil thy Dea∣conship.

* Add to this, that there is no word, or designation of any Clerical office, but is gi∣ven to Bishops and Apostles. The Apostles are called [Prophets] Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch, were Lucius and Manaën, and Paul and Barnabas; and then they are called [Pastors] too; and indeed, hoc ipso, that they are Bishops, they are Pastors. ••piritus S. posuit vos Episcopos Pascere Ecclesiam Dei. Whereupon the Greek Scholiast expounds the word [Pastor] to signifie Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And ever since that Saint Peter set us a copy in the compellati∣on of the Prototype, calling him the Great Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls, it hath ob∣tained in all antiquity, that Pastors and Bishops are coincident, and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary.

* If Bishops be Pastors, then they are Doctors also, for these are conjunct, when other offices which may in person be united, yet in themselves are made disparate; For [God hath given some Apostles,* 1.251 some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Tea∣chers.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If Pastors, then also Doctors and Teachers. And this is observed by S. Austin.* 1.252 "Pastors and 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 Pa∣stors 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 settled and Bishops fixt up∣on their several Sees, then the Names also were made distinct, only those Names which did design temporary Offices did expire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Chry∣sostom, Thus far the names were common, viz. in the sence above explicated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But imme∣diately the names were made proper and distinct, and to every Order its own Name is left, of a Bishop to a Bishop, of a Presbyter to a Presbyter. * This could not be supposed at first, for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour, or offices, and to transplant them to an artificial and imposed sence, Vse, which is the Master of lan∣guage, must rule us in this affair, and Vse is not contracted but in some process and de∣scent of time. * For at first, Christendom it self wanted a name, and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were Christened first in Antioch, for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name. It had been no wonder then, if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church.

SECT. XXIV. Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer.

BUT immediately after the Apostles, and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church, the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception. Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads. In the Ca∣nons of the Apostles the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Bishop, is used thirty six times in appro∣priation to him that is the Ordinary, Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity, being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter, and in the other fourteen having particular care for government, jurisdiction, censures and or∣dinations committed to him, as I shall shew hereafter, and all this is within the verge of the first fifty, which are received as Authentick, by the Councel of (a) 1.253 Nice; of (b) 1.254 An∣tioch, 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles; the Coun∣cel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos, and Apostolicas traditiones; by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus, which Theodoret hath inserted into his story; by the (c) 1.255 Councel of Ephesus; by (d) 1.256 Tertullian; by (e) 1.257 Constantine the Great; and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons, sometimes, the Ecclesiastical Canons, sometimes, the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers, some∣times the Apostolical Canons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo,* 1.258 and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture: so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels, for he sets these Canons in front, because Sancti Patres eorum sententias au∣thoritate Synodali roborarunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones. The H. Fa∣thers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels, and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions. And great reason, for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius,* 1.259 because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous. Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time, who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian, the old copy, elder than this, and yet after the Original to be sure, shews them to be of prime antiquity, and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius, where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons.

* But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg. I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian, and some others, viz. in the sence of the Church, just as the Wisdom of So∣lomon, or Ecclesiasticus, but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement, from the dictate of the Apostles, and without all question are so far Canonical, as to be of un∣doubted Ecclesiastical authority, and of the first Antiquity.

Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority.* 1.260 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father 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 real and exact distinction of Dignity, the appropriation of Name, and intimation of Office. The Bishop is above all, the Presbyters his helpers, the Deacons his Ministers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits. But this is of so known, so evi∣dent a truth, that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it. Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration, viz. to the Trallians, to the Philadelphians, to the Philippians. * And now I shall insert these conside∣rations.

1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death, yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously, which is an evidence, that confusion of names is no intimation, much less an argument for the parity of Offices, since themselves, who sometimes, though indeed very seldom, confound the names, yet distinguish the Offices frequently, and dogmatically. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.261 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 other may be fairly admitted, for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church, and had delegated to the Presby∣tery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen, so that they were Episcopi Vicarii, and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father, but without a Guardian too; and yet what a Bishop was, and of what authority no man more con∣fident and frequent than Ignatius. * Another example of this is in Eusebius, speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop. Clemens, whose story this was, proceeding in the relation sayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But the Presbyter; unless 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 suscipit adolescentem. Redde depositum, O Episcope, saith S. John to him. Tunc graviter suspirans Senior, &c. So S. Clement. * But this, as it is very unusual, so it is just as in Scripture, viz. in descent and comprehension, for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop, or else in the delegation of Episcopal power, for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius.

2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy, was done with fair reason and design. For this is no fastuous or pompous title, the word is of no dignity, and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices. But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration, Rise up to the grey head, and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate. And yet this the Bishops left, and took that which sig∣nifies a meer supra-vision, and overlooking of his charge, so that if we take estimate from the names, Presbyter is a name of dignity, and Episcopus of office and burden. * [He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work,] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Chrysostom. Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat, bonum desiderat gradum, sed bo∣num opus desiderat, quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exer∣cendarum virtutum, so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title, but a good Office, and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues. But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore.* 1.262 Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum, quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil. gerens subditorum. But, Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur, non pro aetate, vel decrepitâ senectute, sed propter honorem & dignitatem quam acceperunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Julius ••ollux.

3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture, and Antiquity, and that both in ascension and descension, yet as Priests may be called Angels, and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church, [the Angel] for his excellency, [of the Church] for his appropriate preheminence and singularity, so though Presby∣ters had been called Bishops in Scripture (of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated, to wit, in conjunction and comprehension;) 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 pass, that the compellation, which was alwayes his, by way of eminence was made his by appropriation. And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The great Shepherd, and Bishop of our Souls. The name [Bishop] was made sacred by being the appellative of his person, and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them, who had from Christ more immediate mission, and more ample power, and therefore [Episcopus] and [Pastor] by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power, office and dignity, as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls. * And

besides this so fair a Copy; besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apo∣stolate of Matthias, and in the Prophet Isaiah, and often in Scripture, as I have shewn before; any one whereof is abundantly enough, for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer; this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest, because 〈 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 Saint Paul writing to the Romans, who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome,* 1.263 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 derivation, and example of Scripture, and fair congruity of reason.

SECT. XXV. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church.

BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops, which it is very requisite to specifie, that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops, which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops.

And first, Bishops were called [Pastors] in antiquity, in imitation of their being called so in Scripture. Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius,* 1.264 Denique cum Smyr∣nam venisset, ubi Polycarpus erat, scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios, eorumque Pasto∣rem, that is, Onesimus, for so follows, in quâ meminit Onesimi.* 1.265 Now that Onesimus was their Bishop, himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Onesi∣mus was their Bishop, and therefore their Pastor, and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos him∣self makes mention of Evodius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 your most blessed and worthy Pastor.

* When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour, presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present,* 1.266 Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis & urbibus— convenerunt Antiochiam. In quibus insignes & caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae, Gregorius, & Athenodorus Fratres—& Helenus Sardensis Eccle∣siae Episcopus—Sed & Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat. These Bishops, Firmilianus, and Helenus, and Maximus were the Pastors; and not only so, but Presbyters were not called Pastors, for he proceeds, sed & Presbyteri quamplurimi, & Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem— convenerunt. So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors. * 1.267 And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church, when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop, if any of the Comprovincials be wanting, he must be certified by the Primate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them. * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters, Deacons, and people of Alexandria, in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius,* 1.268 Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And a little after, & gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis & sititis, &c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen, where Bishops are called Pastores magni, Great Shepherds, or Pastors; * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was ba∣nished, Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui, saith Theodoret, They wept for the loss of their Pastor. And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa,* 1.269 when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity, Et Pastorem (inquit) habemus, & nutus illi∣us sequimur, we have a Pastor (a Bishop certainly, for himself was a Priest) and his commands we follow, But I need not specifie any more particular instances; I touch'd upon it before. * 1.270 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 soll citudinis, first casually and cur∣sorily,

and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided, and endow∣ed, will easily see, that this word [Pastor] must needs be appropriated to Bishops, to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter, and the practice of infant Christen∣dom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was intrusted, first solely, then in communication with others, but alwayes principally.

* But now of late, especially in those places where the Bishops are exauctorated, and no where else that I know, but amongst those men that have complying designs, the word [Pastor] is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom; and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited, subordinate sence, and by way of participation (just as they may be called Angels, when the Bishop is the Angel, and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor, and so they are called Pastores ovium in Saint Cyprian) but never are they called Pastores simply,* 1.271 or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600. years in the Church, and I think 800. more. And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave, to avoid vocum Novitates, because there is never any affectation of new words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom, but there is some design in the thing too, to make an innovation: and of this we have had long warning, in the new use of the word [Pastor.]

SECT. XXVI. And Doctor.

IF Bishops were the Pastors, then Doctors also; it was the observation which S. Augustin 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 Councel of Carthage it was decreed, that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Doctor of their own, that is a Bishop, but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocess to whom formerly they gave obedience; and the title of the Chapter is, that the parts of the Diocess without the Bishops consent 〈 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.* 1.272 And thus also, Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fathers and Doctors, Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus Doctoris est, saith Saint Am∣brose, speaking of the eminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy. The same also is to be seen in Saint * 1.273 Austin, Sedulius, and divers others. I deny not but it is in this appellative as in divers of the rest, that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called Doctors, for every Presbyter must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apt to teach (but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop) and no where expresly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture,* 1.274 but yet because in all Churches, it was by licence of the Bishop, that Presbyters did Preach, if at all, and in some Churches the Bishop only did it, particularly of Alexandria (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.275 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.

SECT. XXVII. And Pontifex.

THE next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops, is Pontifex, and Pontificatus for Episcopa∣cy. Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum, Episcopis Pontificatus munera assigna∣vimus, said the Apostles, as 1. Saint Clement reports. Pontificale 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saint John the Apostle wore in his Forehead,* 1.276 as an Ensign of his Apostleship, a gold plate

or medal, when he was in Pontificalibus, in his Pontifical or Apostolical habit, saith Eusebi∣us. 2. * 1.277 De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit & definitio SS. Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... & si Pontifices voluerint, ut cum eis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes. Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. 3. * 1.278 Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum & Petrum, Pontificatum te∣nebat, saith 4. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus. * 1.279 Apud Antiochiani vero Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenebat. saith the same Eusebius. 5. * 1.280 And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia, that when Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem, was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extream 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 sessus Pontifica∣tus Ministerio sufficere non possit, saith the story. 6. * 1.281 Eulogius the confessor discour∣sing with the Prefect, that wished him to comply with the Emperour, asked him; Num∣quid ille unà cum Imperio etiam Pontificatum est consequutus? He hath an Empire; but hath he also a Bishoprick? Pontificatus is the word. * 1.282 But 7. S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices, and particularly gives this account of the present. Est igitur Pontificatus ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt &c. And a little after, Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus Pontificum ordini &c. To which agrees 8. S. Isidore in his etymologies. Ideo autem & Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur,* 1.283 quia sacrum dant sicut & Episcopi, qui licet Sacerdotes sint, tamen Pontificatus apicem non habent, quia nec Chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum spiritum dant, quod so∣lis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat; and in the same chapter, Pontifex Princeps Sacerdotum est.

One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops, and that's Sacerdos.* 1.284 Sacerdotum autem bipartitus est ordo, say S. Clement and Anacletus, for they are Majores and Minores. The Majores, Bishops, the Minores, Presbyters, for so it is in the Apo∣stolical Constitutions attributed to (a) 1.285 S. Clement, Episcopis quidem assignavimus, & at∣tribuimus quae ad Principatum Sacerdotii pertinent, Presbyteris vero quae ad Sacerdotium. And in (b) 1.286 S. Cyprian, Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti. But although in such distinction and subordination and in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos, yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signifie Episcopacy, and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop. Theotecnus Sacerdotium Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu, saith (c) 1.287 Eusebius, and summus Sacerdos, the Bishop always, Dandi baptismum jus habet sum∣mus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus saith (d) 1.288 Tertullian: and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop, unless when there is some distinctive term, and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time.

Ecclesiae est plebs Sacerdoti adunata, & Grex pastori suo adhaerens, saith S. (e) 1.289 Cyprian. And that we may know by [Sacerdos] he means the Bishop, his next words are, Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo. And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt, Sacerdotem Dei agnoscentes, & contestantes. * (f) 1.290 Eusebius reckoning some of the chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch, in quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus, & Nicomas ab Iconio, & Hierosolymorum praecipuus Sacerdos Hymenaeus, & vicinae huic urbis Cesareae Theotecnus; and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae Sa∣cerdotes. Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecim annis Sacerdotio ministrato diem obiit, for so long he was Bishop, cui succedit Cerdon tertius in Sacerdotium. Et Papias similiter a∣pud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens, for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith (g) 1.291 Eusebius, and the (h) 1.292 Bishop of the Province of Arles, speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus, ordained Bishop by S. Peter, says, quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Pe∣tro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit Sacerdotem. *** The Bishop also was e∣ver design'd when Antistes Ecclesiae was the word. Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Anti∣stes, saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the name in Greek,* 1.293 and used for the Bishop by Justin Martyr (and is of the same authority and use with Praelatus and praepositus Ec∣clesiae.) Antistes autem Sacerdos dictus, ab eo quod antestat. Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae: & supra se nullum habet, saith S. Isidore.

*** But in those things which are of no Question, I need not insist.* 1.294 One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose. The Bishop is sometimes called Primus Presbyter. Nam & Timotheum Episcopum à se creatum Presbyterum vocat: quia Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur,* 1.295 ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Elections were made of Bishops out of the colledge of Presbyters (Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant, saith S. Hierome) but

at first this election was made not according to merit, but according to seniority, and therefore Bishops were called Primi Presbyteri, that's S. Ambrose his sence. But S. Austin gives another, Primi Presbyteri, that is chief above the Presbyters. Quid est Episcopus nisi Primus Presbyter,* 1.296 h. e. summus Sacerdos (saith he) And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words, than is intimated in that clause before, Episcopi, & Presbyteri una ordinatio est: Vterque enim Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus Primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus. Hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter Presbyteros Primus est.* 1.297 The Bishop is Primus Presbyter, that is, Primus Sacer∣dos, h. e. Princeps est Sacerdotum, so he expounds it, not Princeps, or Primus inter Presbyteros, himself remaining a meer Presbyter, but Princeps Presbyterorum; for Primus Presbyter could not be Episcopus in another sence, he is the chief, not the senior of the Presbyters.* 1.298 Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sence lower than Episcopus, for Theo∣doret speaking of S. John Chrysostome, saith, that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch, yet refused to be made Bishop, for a long time. Johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae, ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit.

*** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae, meant the Bishop of the Diocess. Of this there are innumerable examples, but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 23, 27, Epistles; and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres; and infinite places more. Of which this advantage is to be made, that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates, or Praepositi, to be meant of Bishops; Obedite praepositis, Heb. 13. saith Saint Paul. Obey your Prelates, or them that are set over you. Praepositi autem Pastores sunt, saith Saint Austin, Prelates are they that are Pastors. But Saint Cyprian summes up many of them together, and insinuates the several relations, expressed in the several compellations of Bishops. For writing against Florentius Pupianus, ac nisi (saith he) apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum,* 1.299 nec plebs praepositum, nec grex Pastorem, nec Ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec Deus Sacerdotes; and all this he means of himself, who had then been six years Bishop of Carthage, a Prelate of the people, a governour to the Church, a Pastor to the flock, a Priest of the most high God, a Minister of Christ.

The summe is this; When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy, under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum, or Presbyterorum Primus, or Pastor, or Doctor, or Pontifex, or Major, or Primus Sacerdos, or Sacer∣dotium Ecclesiae habens, or Antistes Ecclesiae, or Ecclesiae sacerdos; (unless there be a specification, and limiting of it to a parochial, and inferior Minister) it must be un∣derstood of Bishops in its present acceptation. For these words are all by way of eminency, and most of them by absolute appropriation, and singularity, the appel∣lations, and distinctive names of Bishops.

SECT. XXVIII. And these were a distinct Order from the rest.

BUT, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith the Philosopher) and this their distinction of names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling, and office, supereminent to the rest.

For first Bishops are by all antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy. Si quis Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut quilibet de numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam pa∣rochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam, &c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apo∣stles, and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter, and Deacon, above thirty times in those Canons, and distinct powers given to the Bishop, which are not given to the other, and to the Bishop above the other. * 1.300 The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first, then Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution, gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains as he sees cause. Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... ••iderint, in eorum po∣testate id esse. The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall, for indeed they seldome did, but for the rest, provision was made for both their penances,

and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop. And yet sometimes they did fall, Op∣tatus bewails it, but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order. Quid com∣memorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ ••uerant dignitate suffulti?* 1.301 Quid Ministros plu∣rimos, quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos? Ipsi a∣pices, & Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradi∣derunt, The Laity, the Ministers, the Deacons, the Presbyters, nay, the Bishops themselves, the Princes and chief of all proved traditors. The diversity of order is here fairly inti∣mated, but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2d. book adv. Parmen. Quatuor genera ca∣pitum sunt in Ecclesiâ, Episcoporum, Presbyterorum, Diaconorum, & fidelium. There are four sorts of heads in the Church, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and the faithful Laity. And it was remarkable when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius, some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office, thought he had wept because he was not Bishop, they pretending com∣fort told him, quia locus Presbyterii licèt ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui. The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserved a greater, yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick. So Possidonius tells the story. It was the next step,* 1.302 the next descent, in subordination, the next under it. So the Council of Chalcedon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is sacriledge to bring down a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so the Council permits in case of great delinquency,* 1.303 to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopal order, but still the character remains, and the degree of it self is higher.

* Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus (Fratres chariss.) quia novimus quàm Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium, quod & clero, & plebi debet esse exemplo, said the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in Eusebius, The office of a Bishop is sacred,* 1.304 and ex∣emplary both to the Clergy, and the People. Interdixit per omnia, Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Presbytero, non Diacono licere, &c.* 1.305 And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop. Post Achillam enim Alexander....ordinatur Episcopus. Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit, Alexander was ordained a Bishop, and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters. * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemorati∣on of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church. Julius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit, erántque pro eo praesentes Vitus, & Vicentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae. They were his Vicars, and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Coun∣cil, saith Sozomen. But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man. Many of them were put to death. Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcopi, alii Presbyteri, alii diversorum ordinum Clerici. * 1.306 And this difference of Order is clear in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant, De Episcopis autem constituendis, vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad ••inem sani, bene.... Similiter Presbyteros atque Diaconos in sacerdotali ordine definivimus, &c. And of Sabbatius it is said, Nolens in suo ordine nanere Presbyteratus, desiderabat Epi∣••opatum; he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter, but desired a Bishoprick. Ordo E∣piscoporun quadripartitus est, in Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Metropolitanis, & Episcopis, saith S. Isidore;* 1.307 Omnes autem superius designati ordines uno eodémque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur. But it were infinite to reckon authorities, and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councils but we shall find it recorded: And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge, and publish it, that Episcopacy is a peculiar office, and order in the Church of God; as is to be seen in their decretal Epistles, in the first tome of the Councils. * 1.308 I only summ this up with the attestation of the Church of England, in the preface to the Book of ordination, It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles times, there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The same thing exactly that was said in the second Council of Carthage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But we shall see it better, and by more real probation, for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this;* 1.309

SECT. XXIX. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree.

1. THE Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy, as Deaconship to the Presbyte∣rate, and therefore the Council of Sardis decreed, that no man should be ordained Bishop, but he that was first a Reader, and a Deacon, and a Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.310 That by every degree he may pass to the sublimity of Episcopacy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. But the degree of every order must have the per∣manence and trial of no small time. Here there is clearly a distinction of orders, and ordinations, and assumptions to them respectively, all of the same distance and con∣sideration;* 1.311 And Theodoret out of the Synodical Epistle of the same Council, says that they complained that some from Arianism were reconciled, and promoted from Dea∣cons 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 Encomium of S. Athanasius, speak∣ing of his Canonical ordination, and election to a Bishoprick, says 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 inferior Orders. The same commendation S. Cyprian gives of Cornelius. Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, & in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit...& factus est Episcopus à plurimis Collegis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant,* 1.312 qui ad nos literas.... de ejus ordinatione miserunt. Here is evident, not only a promotion, but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome; so that now the chair is full (saith S. Cyprian) & quisquis jam Episcopus fieri vo∣luerit foris fiat necesse est, Nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem &c. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishoprick.

SECT. XXX. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick.

2. THE ordination of a Bishop to his chair was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter, and not only so, but in another manner than he had when he was made priest. This is evident in the first Ecclesiastical Canon that was made after Scripture.* 1.313 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Priest and Deacon must be ordained of one Bishop, but a Bishop must be ordained by two or three at least. And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolical, S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports, Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus à Petro, Jacobo, & Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. Three Apostles went to the ordaining of S. James to be a Bishop, and the self same thing is in words affirmed by Anicetus; ut in ore duo∣rum,* 1.314 vel trium stet omnis veritas; And S. Cyprian observes that when Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome, there happened to be many of his fellow Bishops there, & factus est Episcopus à plurimis collegis nostris qui tunc in urbe Româ aderant. These Collegae could not be meer Priests, for then the ordination of Novatus had been more Canoni∣cal, than that of Cornelius, and all Christendome had been deceived, for not Novatus who was ordained by three Bishops; but Cornelius had been the schismatick, as being ordained by Priests, against the Canon. But here I observe it for the word [pluri∣mis,] there were many of them at that ordination.

* 1.315 In pursuance of this Apostolical ordinance, the Nicene Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be ordained, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by all the Bishops in the Pro∣vince, unless it be in case of necessity, and then it must be done by three

being gathered together, and the rest consenting; so the ordination to be perform∣ed. * 1.316 The same is ratified in the council of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Bishop is not to be ordained without a Synod of Bishops, and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province. But if this cannot be done conveniently, yet however it is required 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.317 the ordinations must be performed by many. The same was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, can. 12. in the 13 Canon of the African Code, in the 22 Canon of the first Council of Arles, and the fifth Canon of the second Council of Arles,* 1.318 and was ever the practice of the Church; and so we may see it descend through the bowels of the fourth Council of Carthage to the inferiour ages. Episcopus quum ordinatur, duo Episcopi ponant, & te∣neant Evangeliorum codicem super caput, & cervicem ejus, & uno super eum fundente be∣nedictionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant.

The thing was Catholick, and Canonical. It was prima, & immutabilis consti∣tutio, so the first Canon of the Council of * 1.319 Epaunum calls it; And therefore after the death of Meletius Bishop of Antioch, a schism was made about his successor, and Evagrius his ordination condemned;* 1.320 because praeter Ecclesiasticam regulam fuerit or∣dinatus, it was against the rule of Holy Church. Why so? Solus enim Paulinus eum instituerat plurimas regulas praevaricatus Ecclesiasticas. Non enim praecipiunt ut per se quilibet ordinare possit, sed convocare Vniversos provinciae Sacerdotes, & praeter per tres Pontifices ordinationem penitus fieri interdicunt. Which because it was not obser∣ved in the ordination of Evagrius, who was not ordained by three Bishops, the or∣dination was cassated in the Council of Rhegium. And we read that when Novatus would fain be made a Bishop in the schism against Cornelius,* 1.321 he did it tribus adhibitis Episcopis (saith Eusebius) he obtained three Bishops, for performance of the action.

Now besides these Apostolical, and Catholick Canons, and precedents, this thing according to the constant, and United interpretation of the Greek Fathers was actually done in the ordination of S. Timothy to the Bishoprick of Ephesus [Neglect not the grace that is in thee by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.] The Latin Fathers ex∣pound it abstractly viz. to signifie the office of Priest-hood, that is, neglect not the grace of Priest-hood, that is in thee by the imposition of hands, and this Erasmus helps by making [Presbyterii] to pertain to [Gratiam] by a new inter-punction of th•• words; but however, Presbyterii with the Latin Fathers signifies Presbyteratus, not Presbyterorum, and this Presbyteratus is in their sence used for Episcopatus too. But the Greek Fathers understand it collectively, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not simply such, but Bishops too, all agree in that, that Episcopacy is either meant in office, or in person. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Oecumenius; and S. Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Theophylact. So The∣odoret. The probation of this lies upon right reason, and Catholick tradition; For,

SECT. XXXI. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands.

3. THE Bishops ordination was peculiar in this respect above the Presbyters, for a Presbyter did never impose hands on a Bishop. On a Presbyter they did ever since the fourth Council of Carthage; but never on a Bishop. And that was the reason of the former exposition. By the Presbytery S. Paul means Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Presbyters did not impose hands on a Bishop, and therefore Presbyterium is not a Colledge of meer Presbyters, for such could never or∣dain S. Timothy to be a Bishop. The same reason is given by the Latin Fathers why they expound Presbyterium to signifie Episcopacy. For (saith S. Ambrose) S. Paul had or∣dained Timothy to be a Bishop, Vnde & quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim ••as erat, aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret Majorem. So he, and subjoyns this reason, Nemon. tribuit quod non accepit. The same is affirmed by S. Chrysostome, and generally by the authors of the former expositions, that is, the Fathers both of the East, and West. For it was so General and Catholick a truth, that Priests could not, might not lay hands on a Bishop, that there was never any example of it in Christendome till

almost 600. years after Christ, and that but once, and that irregular, and that with∣out imitation of his Successors,* 1.322 or example in his Antecessors. It was the case of Pope Pelagius the first, & dum non essent Episcopi, qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Episcopi, Johannes de Perusio, & Bonus de Ferentino, & Andraeas Presbyter de Ostiâ, & ordinaverunt eum pontificem. Tunc enim non erant in Clero qui eum possent promovere. Saith Damasus. It was in case of necessity, because there were not three Bishops, therefore he procured two,* 1.323 and a priest of Ostia to supply the place of the third, that three, according to the direction Apostolical, and Canons of Nice, Antioch, and Car∣thage, make Episcopal ordination. * The Church of Rome is concerned in the busi∣ness to make fair this ordination, and to reconcile it to the Council of Rhegium, and the others before mentioned, who if ask'd would declare it to be invalid. * But cer∣tainly as the Canons did command three to impose hands on a Bishop, so also they commanded that those three should be three Bishops, and Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three Bishops; and better, because, so they were Bishops, the first Canon of the Apostles approves the ordination if done by two, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the Nicene Canon is as much exact, in requiring the capacity of the person, as the Number of the Ordainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas, was no more in that case than if a lay∣man had done it; it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and though the ordination was absolutely Un∣canonical, yet it being in the exigence of Necessity, and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon, it was valid in naturâ rei, though not in forma Canonis, and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon, and cozen him∣self into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination.* 1.324 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Council of Sardis. Bishops must ordain Bishops; It was never heard that Priests did, or de jure might.

These premises do most certainly infer a real difference, between Episcopacy, and the Presbyterate. But whether or no they infer a difference of order, or only of degree; or whether degree, and order be all one, or no, is of great consideration in the present, and in relation to many other Questions.

1. Then it is evident, that in Antiquity, Ordo and Gradus were used promiscu∣ously. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was the Greek word, and for it the Latins used [Ordo] as is evident in the instances above mentioned, to which add, that Anacletus says, that Christ did instituere duos Ordines, Episcoporum & Sacerdotum. And S. Leo affir••••; Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem,* 1.325 secundum Presbyteralem, tertium Leviticum; And these among the Greeks are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, three degrees. So the order of Deaconship 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 censure used alike in the censures of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. They are all of the same Name, and the same consideration, for order, distance, and degree, a∣mongst the Fathers; Gradus, and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all; and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that, which is called Ordo most frequently. So Felix writing to S. Austin, Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem, quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis;* 1.326 and S. Cyprian of Cornelius, Ad Sacerdotii sublime fasti∣gium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit. Degree, and Order, are used in common, for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons, which cor∣responds to a degree in qualities, and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution,

2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale, was at first called ordinatio Episcopi. Stir up the Grace that is in thee, juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum, saith Sedulius; And S. Hierom; prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopa∣tus. * 1.327 Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem, saith S. Ambrose, proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop. * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit, saith Tertulli••n; and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord.* 1.328 [Ordinatus] was the the word at first, and afterwards [Consecratus] came in conjuncti∣on with it, when Moses the Monk was to be ordained, to wit a Bishop, for that's the title of the story in Theodoret, and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him,* 1.329 absit (says he) ut manus tua me Consecret.

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

— Quo pocula vitae Misceat, & latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni,

as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it. A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church, whereby he is enabled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Council of Ancyra does intimate. But a Bishop hath a higher yet; for besides all the offices communicated to Priests, and Deacons; he can give orders,* 1.330 which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order. For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be, traditio potestatis spiritualis, & Collatio gratiae, ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica; a giving a spiritual power, and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations. Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination, and a distinct power (as I shall shew in the descent) it must needs be a distinct order, both according to the Name given it by antiquity, and ac∣cording to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School.

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

But this to them that consider things sadly, is true or false according as any man list. For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a pow∣er in order to the consecration of the Eucharist, who can help it? Then indeed, in that sence, Episcopacy is not a distinct order, that is, a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist, more than a Presbyter hath. But then why these men should only call this power [an order] no man can give a reason. For, 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order, and I think, before Hugo de S. Victore, and the Master of the Sentences, no man ever denied it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon, and of an Ostiary, and of an Acolouthite, and of a Reader, come to be distinct Orders; for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo, as they have de integro. And if I mistake not; that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist, is more a new pow∣er in order to consecration, than all those inferior officers put together have in all, and yet they call them Orders, and therefore why not Episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unless because they will not.

*** But however in the mean time, the denying the office and degree of Episco∣pacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome, without all reason, and against all Antiquity. This only by the way.

The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause, and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse. For since (say they) that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work, of the most secret mystery, greatest power, and highest dig∣nity that is competent to man, and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop,* 1.331 is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter, who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power? And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders, and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter, and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counter∣poise of a Bishop? Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome, would infer an identity of order, though a disparity of degree, but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too. The first are already answered in the premises, The second must now be served.

1. Then, whether power be greater, of Ordaining Priests, or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question; possibly, it may be of some danger; be∣cause in comparing Gods ordinances, there must certainly be a depression of one, and whether that lights upon the right side or no▪ yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God, to do that, which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing, but however it is unprofitable, of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith, or manners, and besides, cannot fix it self upon any basis, there being no way of proving either to be more ex∣cellent than the other.

2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity, if compared among themselves, are greater, and lesser in several respects. For since they are all in order to several ends, that is, productive of several effects, and they all are excellent, every rite,

and sacrament in respect of its own effect, is more excellent than the other not or∣dained to that effect. For example. Matrimony is ordained for a means to pre∣serve Chastity, and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church, and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism, which does neither. But * Bap∣tism is for remission of sins and * 1.332 in that is more excellent than Matrimony; the same may be said for ordination, and consecration, the one being in order to Christs natu∣ral body (as the Schools speak) the other in order to his mystical body, and so have their several excellencies respectively; but for an absolute preheminence of one a∣bove the other, I said there was no basis to fix that upon, and I believe all men will find it so that please to try. But in a relative, or respective excellency, they go both before, and after one another. Thus Wool, and a Jewel, are better than each o∣ther; for wool is better for warmth, and a jewel for ornament. A frogg hath more sense in it, than the Sun; and yet the Sun shines brighter.

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

4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world, and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power, yet a lesser power than it, superadded to the Bishops, may make a distinct order, and superiority. Thus it was said of the son of Man, Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis, he was made a little lower than the Angels. It was but a little lower, and yet so much as to distin∣guish their Natures, for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels, but the seed of Abraham. So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest; for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church, viz. consecration of the vene∣rable Eucharist, yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis, a little lower than the Bishop, the Angel of the Church, yet this little lower, makes a distinct order, and enough for a subordination. * An Angel, and a man communicate in those great ex∣cellencies of spiritual essence, they both discourse, they have both election, and freedom of choice, they have will, and understanding, and memory, impresses of the Divine image: and loco-motion, and immortality. And these excellencies are (being precisely considered) of more real and eternal worth, than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant, and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition, and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no less than specifical. If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus, what we call difference in nature there, will be a difference in order here, and of the same consideration.

5. Lastly it is considerable, that these men that make this objection, do not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turn. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the real presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so, in all sences; and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more than in ordination? Nay, is there any such thing as consecration at all? This also would be considered from their princi∣ples. But I proceed.

One thing only more is objected against the main Question. If Episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest, as (abstract∣ing from the Laws of the Church) a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Dea∣con, for if it be the impress of a distinct character, it may be imprinted per saltum, and independently, as it is in the order of a Presbyter?

To this I answer, It is true if the powers and characters themselves were indepen∣dent; as it is in all those offices of humane constitution, which are called the inferior orders; For the office of an Acolouthite, of an Exorcist, of an Ostiary, are no way dependent on the office of a Deacon, and therefore a man may be Deacon, that never was in any of those, and perhaps a Presbyter too, that never was a Deacon, as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples. But a Bishop though he have a distinct character, yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter, but supposes it ex vi ordinis. For since the power of ordination (if any thing be) is the distinct capacity of a Bishop, this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be

in the Bishop, for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power, that himself hath not? can he give what himself hath not received?

* I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius, Vox est Aerii haeretici, Vnus est ordo Episcoporum, & Presbyterorum una dignitas.* 1.333 To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters, was a heresy first broached by Aerius, and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) countenanced by many of the Church of Rome.

SECT. XXXII. For Bishops had a power distinct, and Superiour to that of Pres∣byters. As of Ordination.

FOR to clear the distinction of order, it is evident in Antiquity, that Bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of orders which Presbyters have not. * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already expli∣cated: but now the inquiry is, what the Church did in pursuance of the practice, and tradition Apostolical. The first, and second Canons of Apostles command that two, or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop, and one Bishop should ordain a Priest, and a Deacon. A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain, a Bishop is. * 1.334 S. Dionysius affirms, Sacerdotem non posse initiari, nisi per invocationes Episcopales, and acknow∣ledges no ordainer but a Bishop. No more did the Church ever; Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans, did ambire Episcopatum, he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius. * 1.335 To this we may add as so many witnesses, all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus Platina, and others. Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, Presbyteros decem, Diaconos duos, &c. creat (S. Clemens) Anacletus Presbyteros quinque, Diaconos tres, Episcopos diversis in locis sex nu∣mero creavit, and so in descent, for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together.

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

In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.336 That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop. Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it. * First, not Rural Bishops, that is, Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis, Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess, they must not ordain Priests and Deacons. For it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is anothers Diocess, and to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture. But then they may with license? Yes; for they had Episcopal Ordination at first, but not Episcopal Jurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part. The words are these, as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus. Qui in villis, & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi, tametsi manus impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt, [& ut Episcopi sunt consecrati] tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the next clause [& ut Episcopi consecrati sunt] although it be in very ancient Latine copies, yet is not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum for ex∣position of the Greek, but is most certainly implyed in it; for else, what description could this be of Chorepiscopi, above Presbyteri rurales, to say that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for so had countrey Priests, they had received imposition of the Bishops hands. Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be taken collectively, not distributively, to wit, that each Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops, many Bishops in con∣junction, and so they were very Bishops, or else they had no more than village Priests, and then this caution had been impertinent.

* But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a Parenthesis, with an 〈 in 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 ordain any, but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain (to them I say, who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license, it being in alienâ Pa∣rochiâ, yet they had capacity by their order to do it) if these should do it, the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same imployment, by a temporary mission, that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary, and fixt residence, might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did, or that they might go beyond it, as well as the Chorepiscopi, and therefore their way was ob∣structed by this clause of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. *Add to this; The Presbyters of the City were of great honour, and peculiar priviledge, as appears in the thir∣teenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea, and therefore might easily exceed, if the Canon had not been their bridle.

The sum of the Canon is this. With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might or∣dain, for themselves had Episcopal ordination, but without license they might not, for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction; And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, like the 70 Disciples, that is, inferior to Bishops, and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles, viz. in hoc particulari, not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction: but the City Presbyters might not ordain, neither with, nor without license; for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis, and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to Chorepiscopi, not to Presbyteri Civitatis, unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catho∣lick Church. Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari, is a most certain rule in Divini∣ty, and admitted by men of all sides, and most different interests. * However we see here, that they were prohibited, and we never find before this time, that any of them actually did give orders, neither by ordinary power, nor extraordinary dispen∣sation; and the constant tradition of the Church, and practice Apostolical is, that they never could give orders; therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no excep∣tion, but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders, either to a Pres∣byter, or a Deacon, and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episco∣pal order, and jurisdiction for ordinations, for, reddendo singula singulis, and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church, and exigence of Ca∣tholick custome, the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of juris∣diction, and the Priests of the City for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus, the second cannot; but by a new ordina∣tion, that is, by making the Priest a Bishop. For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination, and yet the Chorepiscopus might not col∣late orders without a faculty from the Bishop, the City Priests might not do it, unless more be added to them, for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be order.

* But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopal Ordination, yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Bishops Diocess, and as they were but Vicarii, or visitatores Episcoporum in villis, so their ordination was but to a meer Presbyterate. And this we find, as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination. For those who in the beginning of the 10 Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops, in the end of the same Canon, we find it decreed de novo: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Chorepiscopus or countrey Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City, in whose jurisdiction he is; which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter, and no more. And ever after this all the ordinations they made were, only to the inferiour Ministeries, with the Bishops License too, but they never ordained any to be Deacons or Priests; for these were Orders of the Holy Ghosts appointing, and therefore were gratia Spiritus Sancti, and issues of order; but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader, an Ostiary, &c. were humane constitutions, and required not the capacity of Episco∣pal Order to collate them; for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost, as all Orders properly so called are, but might by humane dispensation be bestowed, as well as by humane ordinance they had their first constitution. *

* The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Council of Hispalis: save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi

who had been Bishops of Cities, but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices, and by being Traditors, but in case they repented and were reconciled, they had not indeed restitution to their See, but, because they had the indeleble character of a Bishop, they were allowed the Name, and honour, and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopal. Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended, if they had made ordinations; and of the other nothing pertinent, for they also had the ordination, and order of Bishops. The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Council, as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria. * 1.337 But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand, that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge.

* I find the like care taken in the Council of Sardis, for when Musaeus, and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks, themselves not being Bishops,* 1.338 Gaudentius (one of the moderate men, it is likely) for quietness sake, and to comply with the times, would fain have had those Clerks received into Clerical communion; but the Coun∣cil would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon; but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily, and indeed. But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus, 〈 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 imposed hands on them; and therefore the Clerks were not ordained truly, but were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dissemblers of ordination. Quae autem de Musaeo & Eutychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt, &c. saith Balsamon, intimating, that it is a ruled case and of publick interest.

* The same was the issue of those two famous cases, the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that dreamed only he was a Bishop. Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest, nor any else of his ordaining, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Ischyras himself was reduced into lay communion, be∣ing deposed by the Synod of Alexandria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.339 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate, say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis; And of the rest that were ordained with Ischiras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith S. Athanasius, and this so known a business, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, No man made scruple of the Nullity. ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters or∣dained by Maximus, who was another Bishop in the air too; all his ordinations were pronounced null, by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople.* 1.340 A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination,* 1.341 the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevil. These cases are so known, I need not insist on them. This only,

In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons, Clergy men were reduced to lay communion, either being suspended, or deposed; that is, from their place of honour, and execution of their function, with, or without hope of restitution respectively; but then still they had their order, and the Sacramens conferred by them were valid, though they indeed were prohibited to minister; but in the cases of the present in∣stance, the ordinations were pronounced as null, to have bestowed nothing, and to be merely imaginary.

* But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title, or in the Diocess of another Bishop, as in the Council of * 1.342 Chalcedon, & of * 1.343 Antioch 〈 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 constitu∣tion pronounced void, and no more, and therefore may be rescinded by the Coun∣termand of an equal power; A Council at most may do it, and therefore without a Council, a probable necessity will let us loose. But to this the answer is evident.

1. The expressions in the several cases are several, and of diverse issue, for in case of those nullities which are meerly Canonical, they are expressed as then first made, but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop, they are only declared void ipso facto. And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations, the Canon saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Irritam Existimari manus impositionem, to be esteemed as null, that is, not to have Canonical approbation, but is not declared null, in natura rei, as it is in the foregoing instances.

2. In the cases of Antioch, and Chalcedon, the degree is pro futuro, which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made by Canon, but in the cases of Collu∣thus,

and Maximus, there was declaration of a past nullity, and that before any Ca∣non was made; and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations inva∣lid, yet none decreed so for the future, which is a clear evidence, that this nullity, viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter, is not made by Canon, but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing.

3. If to this be added, that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by na∣ture and institution of the order of Bishops, ordination was appropriate to them, then it will also from hence be evident, that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution, but on the exigence of the institution. ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop, even they who to advance the Presbyters, were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy, give testi∣mony; making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter, that the Bishop hath power of ordination, the Presbyter hath not. So S. Jerome, Quid facit Episcopus (excepta ordinatione) quod Presbyter non faciat?* 1.344 All things (saith he) [to wit all things of precise order] are common to Bishops with Priests, except ordi∣nation, for that is proper to the Bishop. And S. Chrysostome, Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt [Episcopi] atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur.* 1.345 Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop; and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon.

4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon, but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop: Aerius was by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and S. Austin condemned, and branded for heresie, and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius. This power therefore came from a higher spring, than positive and Canonical Sanction. But now proceed.

* 1.346The Council held in Trullo, complaining of the incursion of the barbarous peo∣ple upon the Churches inheritance, saith that it forced some Bishops from their resi∣dence, and made that they could not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the guise of the Church, give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop; and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases, ut & diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant, to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men. Giving of Orders is proper, it belongs to a Bishop. So the Council. And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul [by laying on the hands of the Presbytery] interprets it of Bishops; for this reason, because Presbyters did not impose hands. * 1.347 There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose, Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur, those things that are not done, but by Bishops, they were decreed still to be done by Bishops, though he that was to do them regularly, did fall into any infirmity whatsoever, yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat, sed evocet Episcopum. Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops, to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted. The particulars, what they are, are not specified in the Canon, but are named before, viz. Orders, and Confirmation, for almost the whole Council was concerning them, and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi, and the Canon else is not to be understood. * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description, or name of a Bishop, used by S. Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The man that is to ordain Clerks.

* And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius,* 1.348 denying Episcopacy to be a distinct 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 baptism, but no fathers or Doctors by ordination. * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter, the Bishop did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.349 all the whole Clergy was against it, yet the Bishop did ordain him, and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a ruled case, and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church, which was set down in the third Council of Carthage, Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt.* 1.350 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 Presby∣ter 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, num∣quid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? How if the Bishop have but one Priest,

must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church? Yea, that he must. But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presby∣ter to assist him? That indeed would have been the objection now, but it was none then. For Aurelius told them plainly; there was no inconvenience in it, for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter, no great matter, he can himself ordain many (and then I am sure there is a 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.* 1.351 So it is in the Nicene Coun∣cil, the Council of * 1.352 Antioch, the Council of ‖ 1.353 Chalcedon, and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem; If thou speak (saith he) of Paulinianus, he comes now and then to visit us, not as any of your Clergy, but ejus à quo ordinatus est, that Bishop's who ordained him.

* So that the issue of this argument is this. The Canons of the Apostles, and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops, of Pres∣byters to one Bishop, (for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together, but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea) Presbyters are never menti∣oned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations, and if alone they did it, their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio.

* To these particulars add this, that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical, which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unless they did it alone, we never read that they were punishable; indeed Bishops were pro toto, & integro, as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, and Eleusius. Thus also it was de∣creed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the Imperial constitutions.* 1.354 Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in com∣mission, or practice, or penalty all this while; I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence, Episcopus Sa∣cerdotibus, ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest. The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour, he alone is not suffered to take it away. * 1.355 This Council was held in the year 657, and I set it down here for this purpose,* 1.356 to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage, which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations, yet was not obligatory in the West; but for al∣most 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone. But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together; but for ought I know, ever since then it hath obtained, that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop, yet of a Presbyter they do; but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution, first made in a Provincial of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice.

* I know not what can be said against it. I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian, who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess, that if any man, he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy. * 1.357 Hunc igitur (Fratres Di∣lectissimi) à me, & à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis. Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters. If Bishops, then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order, which because it was (as I ob∣served before) against the practice of Christendom, will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian. But if he means Presbyters by [Collegae] then sole ordination is invalidated by this example, for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius.

I answer, that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one, or the other, for Aurelius the Confessor, who was the man ordained, was ordained but to be a Rea∣der, and that was no Order of Divine institution, no gift of the Holy Ghost, and there∣fore might be dispensed by one, or more; by Bishops or Presbyters, and no way en∣ters into the consideration of this question, concerning the power of collating those or∣ders 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 practice of Primitive Antiquity.

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

1. For my part I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice; and we are so bound by publick

interest to approve all that they do, that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own. For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church, we found these men zealous in it, we thanked God for it (as we had cause) and we were willing to make them recompence, by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon our selves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery.

2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the Primitive Church, than what we think of the reformed Churches? Did the Primitive Councils, and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters? If they did well, what was a vertue in them, is no sin in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations? since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops, and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy, is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office, or of a Colledge of Pres∣byters; and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as ap∣pears 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 signifie a Bishop, and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops, they can never prove from Scripture, where all men grant that the Names are confounded.

* So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations? From Scripture? That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops, (as I have proved) and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination, can never be shown from thence. From whence then? From Antiquity? That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone, that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon, till the fouth Council of Carthage; much less do it alone, rightly, and with effect. So that, as in Scripture there is no∣thing 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, and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries. But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, than erre with a glorious correspondence.

But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bi∣shops? shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei, or else lose the being of a Church, for want of Episcopal ordinations? * Indeed if the case were just thus, it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches; but I have here two things to consider.

1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion,* 1.358 but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis, a man of honour and great learning does attest, that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy that joyned in the reformation, whom they might, but did not imploy in their ordinati∣ons; And what necessity then can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn that I might make their defence. But, which is of more, and deeper consideration; for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes,* 1.359 but, it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France, that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery, though he had before Episcopal ordination, as both their friends and their enemies bear witness.

2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin, for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceaseth to be a sin; but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place, he will do it by means pro∣portionable to that end; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing, and ac∣quiring those things which himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church. * So that, supposing that ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocati∣on of Priests and Deacons (as I have proved it is) and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church, either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such 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.

* 1.360There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose. When Aedesius and Frumen∣••ius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians, they preached Christianity, and baptized

many, but themselves being but Lay-men, could make no Ordinations, and so not fix a Church. What then was to be done in the case? Frumentius Alexandriam pergit — & rem omnem, ut gesta est, narrat Episcopo, ac monet, ut provideat virum aliquem dig∣num quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat. Fru∣mentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop. Athanasius being then Patriarch or∣dained Frumentius their Bishop, Et tradito ei Sacerdotio, redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet — ex quo (saith Ruffinus) in Indiae partibus,* 1.361 & populi Christiano∣rum & Ecclesiae factae sunt, & Sacerdotium coepit.

The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman; Posteà verò quàm Ecclesia magnificè constructa est, & populi fidem Dei majore ardore s••••••∣ebant, captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur: Res gesta exponitur: Sacerdotes mittere oratur qui coeptum erga se Dei munus implerent. The work of Christianity could not be compleated, nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops. * Thus the case is evident, that the want of a Bishop will not ex∣cuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one; and where God means to found a Church, there he will supply them with those means, and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us, prove heretical, still Gods Church is Catholick, and though with trouble, yet Orthodox Bishops may be ac∣quir'd. For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermite made the Bishop of her Nation, and offered peace to the Ca∣tholicks upon that condition; Lucius an Arian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses; The Hermite discovered his vileness,* 1.362 Et ita majore de∣decore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere. Moses refus'd to be ordain'd by him that was an Arian. So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman Communion. But what then might they have done? Even the same that Moses did in that necessity; Compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat (Luci∣us) sacerdotium sumere. Those good people might have had order from the Bishops of England, or the Lutheran Churches, if at least they thought our Churches Catholick and Christian.

If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling ju∣stifie it; Yea, most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordina∣ry calling, viz. an evident prophesie, demonstration of Miracles, certainty of reason, clarity of sence, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission.

But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches, whose ordinati∣ons always have been without Bishops? No indeed. That must not be. They stand or fall to their own Master. And though I cannot justifie their ordinations, yet what degree their necessity is of, what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how far a good life, and a Catholick belief may lead a man in the way to Heaven, (although the forms of external communion be not ob∣served) 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 seat is, and thou heldest fast my faith, and hast not denied my Name; Ni∣hilominus habeo adversus te pauca, Some few things I have against thee;] and yet of them, the want of Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the Greater. * 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 guess, unless they only be impeccable, which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think, that all the Church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own Churches required it; and that the first pretence of the le∣gality, and validity of their ordinations been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us, and to the practice of the Catholick Church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them; But I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the Catholicks under the fury of Justi∣na, Sed tantafuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, ut animas prius amittere, quàm Epi∣scopum mallent; If it were put to our choice, rather to dye (to wit the death of Mar∣tyrs, not rebels) than lose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy, without which no Priest, no ordination, no consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity.

The summe is this. If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolical, if the decrees of eight famous Councils in Christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican Council, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr-Bishops of Rome making ordinations, if the testi∣mony of the whole Pontifical book, if the dogmatical resolution of so many Fathers, S. Denis, S. Cornelius, S. Athanasius, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Au∣stin, and divers others, all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand: if the con∣stant voice of Christendom, declaring ordinations made by Presbyters, to be null and void in the nature of the thing: and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop, ap∣proved by any Council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom: if that ordinations of Bishops were always made, and they ever done by Bishops, and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations, and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone, or in conjunction with Bishops: as it was in the case of Aerius: if all this, that is, if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular; then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters, to wit, in this Great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom.

SECT. XXXIII. And Confirmation.

* BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy. The next is of Confirmation of baptized people. And here the rule was this,* 1.363 which was thus expressed by Damascen: Apostolorum, & Suc∣cessorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere. It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. But see this in particular instance.

The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity, and exigence of journey; Ita tamen ut si su∣pervixerit [baptizatus] ad Episcopum eum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit. Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands. This was Law.

* 1.364It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian, Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ec∣clesiâ baptizantur, per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem, & ma∣nûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur, & signaculo Dominico consummentur; And this custom was Catholick too, and the Law was of Vniversal concernment. Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani accipere debent. So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle; And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci,* 1.365 & demùm Consignari ab Episcopo, & septi∣formem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere; so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement. All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned, and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism, Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur, be∣cause Bishops only can give Confirmation; And the same is said and proved by S. Eu∣sebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery, Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus. It cannot, it may not be performed by any, but by the Bishops.

* 1.366Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philip baptizing the men of Samaria, gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized. For he had not power. For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles. And a little after: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This was peculiar to the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence it comes to pass, that the principal and chief of the Church do it, and none else. And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius;* 1.367 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized. For this was the Ancient practice.

I shall not need to instance in too many particulars, for that the Ministry of Confir∣mation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church, is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers; particu∣larly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in * 1.368 Eusebius, (a) 1.369 Tertullian, (b) 1.370 S. Innocentius the first, (c) 1.371 Damasus, (d) 1.372 S. Leo, in (e) 1.373 John the third, in (f) 1.374 S. Gregory, Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius, and Eubulus, the (g) 1.375 Council of Orleans, and of (h) 1.376 Melda, and lastly of (i) 1.377 Sevill which affirms, Non licere Presbyteris — per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracle∣tum spiritum tradere. It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of Episcopal power— Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur. Vtraque verò ista manu, & ore Antistitis impetramus. These are enough for authority, and dogmatical 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 last∣ing schism between the Latin and Greek Churches, and it was upon this occasion too. For when the Bulgarians were first converted, the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them. But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed,* 1.378 both be∣cause (as they pretended) the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the Presby∣ters a capacity of order to give confirmation.

The matters of fact, and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable, but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema, and of S. Mal∣chus attested by S. Bernard, because they were ratified by miracle,* 1.379 saith the Ancient story. I end this with the saying of S. Hierome, Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In actibus Apostolorum. Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret. If you ask where it is written? (viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm) It is written in the Acts of the Apostles (meaning, by prece∣dent, though not express precept) but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command. *** It was for∣tunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair, for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words, for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration, particularly of Confirmation, he says, it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem. For the honour of the Priesthood, rather than for the necessity of a law.

To this the answer is evident from his own words: That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles; and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy, than a simple necessity in the na∣ture of the thing makes no matter. For the question here that is only of concern∣ment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop, but by whom it was re∣served? Now S. Hierome says it was done apud Acta, in the Scripture, therefore by Gods Holy Spirit, and the end he also specifies, viz. for the honour of that sacred order, non propter legis necessitatem, not that there is any necessity of law, that Confir∣mation should be administred by the Bishop. Not that a Priest may do it, but that, as S. Hierome himself there argues, the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism, if it happens that Bishops may not be had (for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage, and places remote, and destitute of Bishops) then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law, that Confirmation should be had at all: A man does not perish if he have it not; for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar mini∣stration, was indeed an honour to the function, but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it. So that this [non necessarium] is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration, as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done, nor that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had; but this non-necessity is to be referred to Confirmation it self; so that if a Bishop can∣not be had, Confirmation, though with much loss, yet with no danger may be omit∣ted. This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse, this reconciles him to himself, this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions, and consequently to his argu∣ments; and to be sure, no exposition can make these words to intend that this reser∣vation of the power of Confirmation to Bishops, is not done by the spirit of God, and then let the sence of the words be what they will, they can do no hurt to the cause▪ and as easily may we escape from those words of his, to Rusticus Bishop of Nar∣bona. Sed quia scriptum est, Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur — praedicare eos decet,

utile est benedicere, congruum confirmare, &c. It is quoted by Gratian dist. 95. can. ecce ego. But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus, i. e. in fide, the Presbyters may preach, they may confirm their Auditors, not by consignation of Chrism, but by confirmation of faith; and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word [Confirmare] by authority of S. Gregory,* 1.380 who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome, Vt Orthodoxos Episcopos, Presbyteros, vel quoscunque reperir•• potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos, ampliùs confirmaret. Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops and Priests in any other sence but this of S. Hierom's in the present, to wit, in faith and doctrine, not in rite and mystery, and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sence of S. Gregory, for else he becomes an Antistrephon, and his own opposite.

* Yea, but there is a worse matter than this. S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests,* 1.381 that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm. Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus. But,

1. The passage is suspicious, for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concern∣ing the Primitive Order of election to the Bishoprick, and is no way pertinent to the discourse, but is incircled with a story of a far different consequence, which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author.

2. But suppose the clause be not surreptitious, but natural to the discourse, and born with it, yet it is matter of fact, not of right, for S. Ambrose neither approves, nor disproves it, and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholick practice and Laws of Christendom.

3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious, yet the word [Consignant] is, for S. Austin who hath the same discourse, the same thing, viz. of the dignity of Pres∣byters, tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria, and all Egppt, almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose, but he tells it thus, Nam & in Alexandriâ & per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus,* 1.382 Consecrat Presbyter. So that it should not be consignat, but consecrat; for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters, but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence, or commission. I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction, that that was indeed permitted in Egypt, & some other places, but Confirmation never, that we can find else∣where, and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practice Apo∣stolical, and four Councils, and sixteen ancient Catholick Fathers, testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm, and not Priests, so that if there be no other scruple, this Question is quickly at an end.

** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection; for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia,* 1.383 ut baptizatos Vnguant, to aneal baptized people. Now anoin∣ting the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnities of Confirmation, so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming; for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council, and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for Confirmation. But this will not much trouble the business.

Because it is evident that he means it not of Confirmation, but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptism. For in his ninth Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptized people, now here is precept against precept, therefore it must be understood of several anointings, and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this ninth Epistle, Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis infronte Chrismate non praesumant. Presbyters may not anoint baptized people twice, once they might; now that this per∣mission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism, not an act of confir∣mation, we shall see by comparing it with other Canons. * 1.384 In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis, It is decreed thus, [Presbyter praesente Epi∣scopo non Signet infantes, nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum. A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present. Must not sign them] that is with Chrisme in their foreheads, and that in baptism; for the circumstant Canons do ex∣presly explicate and determine it; for they are concerning the rites of baptism, and this in the midst of them. And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his [Presbyte∣ri consignant absente Episcopo] in case it be so to be read; for here we see a consignati∣on permitted to the Presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism, in the absence of the Bishop, and this an act of indulgence and favour, and therefore extraordinary, and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters, but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation. * And indeed [Consignari] is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross, and anealing. Thus it is used in the

first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction,* 1.385 which is there in case of extreme necessi∣ty permitted to Presbyters: Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos, Si Catholici esse de∣siderent, si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate, & benedictione Consignari pla∣cet. Consign'd is the word, and it was clearly in extreme Unction, for that rite was not then ceased, and it was in anealing a dying body, and a part of reconciliation, and so limited by the sequent Canon, and not to be fancied of any other consignation. But I return. *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme, but Bishops only, and takes order,* 1.386 Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Pas∣chae Diaconi destinentur, ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere; that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches. But for what use? why, it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon, against the Holy time of Easter, and then, at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms, so that it was to be used in baptism. And this sence being premi∣sed, the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme, the same thing that S. Gre∣gory did to the Priests of Sardinia. Statutum verò est, Diaconum non Chrismare, sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo, praesente verò, si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum. Now although this be evident enough, yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council,* 1.387 Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari. The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism, and it is as evident that this Chris∣mation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters, not the other, for he ex∣presly forbad the other, and the exigence of the Canons, and practice of the Church expound it so, and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms, Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet,* 1.388 sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum; there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism, but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation; Non tamen fron∣tem eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Para∣cletum.

By the way; some, that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispen∣sation to be only in baptismal Chrisme, read it [Vt baptizandos ungant] not [bapti∣zatos] so Gratian, so S. Thomas, but it is needless to be troubled with that, for Inno∣centius in the decretal now quoted useth the word [Baptizatos,] and yet clearly di∣stinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation.

I know no other objection, and these we see hinder not, but that having such evi∣dence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles, and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church, and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops, and denied to Presbyters, and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion, but witnesses of a Ca∣tholick practice, and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent; and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest, that did, no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation; we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original, Episcopal in the Succession, and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter, and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice.

SECT. XXXIV. And Jurisdiction. Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power.

THUS far I hope we are right. But I call to mind, that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Pati∣ents in water; some were up to the Chin, some to the Middle, some to the Knees; So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy; some endure not the Name, and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears; some will have them all one in office with Presbyters, as at first they were in Name; and they had need bath up to the Chin; but some stand shallower, and grant a little distinction, a pre∣cedency perhaps for order-sake, but no preheminence in reiglement, no superi∣ority of Jurisdiction; Others by all means would be thought to be quite

through in behalf 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 means they think to impair their power, they may well endure to be up to the ankles, their error indeed is less, and their pretence fairer, but the use they make of it, of very ill consequence. But curing the mistake will quickly cure this di∣stemper. That then shall be the present issue, that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power, and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction, than now Men will endure to be granted, or than themselves are very forward to chal∣lenge.

1. Then; The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop, did it in terms of presidency and authority. Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit, saith S. Ignatius;* 1.389 The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father, that is, in power and authority to be sure, (for how else?) so as to be the supreme in suo ordine, in offices Ecclesiastical. And again, Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quàm is qui omni Principatu, & potestate superior est? Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power; A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power, viz. in ma∣teriâ, or gradu religionis. And in his Epistle to the Magnesians. Hortor ut hoc sit om∣nibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei. Do all things in Vnity, the Bishop being President in the place of God. President in all things. And with a fuller tide yet, in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem, Dei quidem propter Principatum, Christi verò propter Sacerdotium. It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of or∣der and Jurisdiction. The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests, bearing the Image of God for his Principality (that's his jurisdiction and power) but of Christ himself for his Priesthood, (that's his Order.) S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly, and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh, and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity, and died a Martyr, and hath been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity, certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure, being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis, not casually slipt from him, and by incogitancy, but reso∣lutely and frequently.

But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages. Fungaris circa eum Po∣testate honoris tui,* 1.390 saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus. Execute the Power of thy dig∣nity upon the refractory Deacon; And Vigor Episcopalis, and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle. This is high enough. So is that which he presently sub∣joyns, calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem, A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church. * Locus Magisterii tra∣ditus ab Apostolis, so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy; A place of mastership or authority delive∣red by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors. * 1.391 Eusebius speaking of Dionysius, who succeeded Heraclas, he received (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria. * 1.392 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Council of Sardis; to the top or height of Episco∣pacy. Apices & Principes omnium, so Optatus calls Bishops; the Chief and Head of all;* 1.393 and S. Denys of Alexandria, Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum, & ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ, saith Eusebius. And Origen calls the Bishop,* 1.394 eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet, He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church.

The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dis∣possessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale, so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess, yet they should enjoy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state; their appropriate presidency. And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Prelate or Prefect of the Church; I know not how to expound it better. But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage, command∣ing that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop,* 1.395 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Governs the Church in that place. * And in the Council of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church. * 1.396 Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat. Saint Sylve∣ster [the Bishop] held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church,* 1.397 saith Theodo∣ret.

But the instances of this kind are infinite, two may be as good as twenty,* 1.398 and these they are. The first is of S. Ambrose; Honor & Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all com∣parison great. And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas; Vnde regen∣dae Sacerdotibus contraduntur, meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur, &c. The sheep are de∣livered to Bishops as to Rulers, and are made their Subjects; and in the next Chapter,* 1.399 Haec verò cuncta, Fratres, ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis, ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus, nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri: ut cum dignita∣tem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus, & dignè noscamus quid sumus — actione potius, quàm Nomine demonstremus. These things I have said, that you may know nothing is higher, nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop, &c. * The other is of S. Hierom, Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet, The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop. But more confidently spoken is that in his dia∣logue adversus Luciferianos: Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet,* 1.400 cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop, to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all, there will be as many Schisms as Priests.

Here is dignity, and authority, and power enough expressed; and if words be ex∣pressive of things (and there is no other use of them) then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority, and all the whole Diocess are his subjects, viz. in regimine Spirituali.

SECT. XXXV. Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity.

BUT from words let us pass to things. For the Faith and practice of Christen∣dom require obedience, Universal obedience to be given to Bishops. I will be∣gin again with Ignatius, that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primi∣tive consistence, may see what they gain by it, for the more Primitive the testimonies are, the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops; for it happened in this, as in all other things; at first, Christians were more devout, more pursuing of their duties, more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith; and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe, it is nothing, but that it being a great part of Christiani∣ty to honour and obey them, it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion, and particularly of Charity, come to so low a declension, as it can scarce stand alone; and faith, which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man.

But to our business.

S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis, Necesse itaque est (saith he) quic∣quid facitis, ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis. So the Latin of Vedelius, which I the rather chuse, because I am willing to give all the advantage I can. It is necessary (saith the good Martyr) that whatsoever ye do, you should attempt nothing without your Bishop. And to the Magnesians, Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo, & in nullo illi refragari. It is fit∣ting that ye should obey your Bishop, and in nothing to be refractory to him. Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est, already. It is very fitting, it is necessary. But if it be possible, we have a fuller expression yet, in the same Epistle; Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit, nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam: sic & vos sine Episcopo, nec Diaconus, nec Laiconus, nec Laicus, Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium, quod enim tale est, & Deo inimicum. Here is obedience uni∣versal, both in respect of things and persons; and all this no less than absolutely neces∣sary. For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things, saying, of my self I can do nothing: so nor you without your Bishop; whoever you be, whether Priest, or Deacon, or Layman. Let nothing please you, which the Bishop mislikes, for all such things are wicked, and in enmity with God. * But it seems Saint Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept, for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to. We have already reckoned the Trallians, and the Magnesians. But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop. The same to the Philadelphians. Sine Episcopo nihil facite, Do nothing without your Bishop. But this is better explicated in his Epi∣stle to the Church of Smyrna. Sine Episcopo nemo quicquam faciat eorum quae ad Ec∣clesiam spectant. No man may do any thing without the Bishop, viz. of those things which belong to the Church. So that this saying expounds all the rest, for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sence of the Church, viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance, all Church-affairs. And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarp their Bishop; that he also look to it, that nothing be done without hi•• leave. Nihil sine tuo Arbitrio agatur, nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem. As thou must do nothing against Gods will, so let nothing (in the Church) be done without thine. By the way, observe, he says not, that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop, so the Bishop nothing without them; But, so the Bishop nothing without God. But so it is. Nothing must be done without the Bishop; And there∣fore although he incourages them that can to remain in Virginity, yet this, if it be either done with pride, or without the Bishop, it is spoiled. For, Si gloriatus fuerit, periit, & si id ipsum statuatur sine Episcopo, corruptum est. His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarp, is with an [Episcopo attendite, sicut & Deus vobis.] The way to have God to take care of us, is to observe our Bishop. Hinc & vos decet accedere Sententiae Episcopi,* 1.401 qui secundum Deum vos pascit, quemadmodum & facitis, edocti à spiritu; You must therefore c••••form to the sentence of the Bishop, as indeed ye do already, being taught so to do by Gods holy Spirit.

There needs no more to be said in this cause, if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden. What the man was, I said before: what these Epistles are, and of what authority, let it rest upon * 1.402 Vedelius, a man who is no ways to be suspect∣ed as a party for Episcopacy, or rather upon the credit of (a) 1.403 Eusebius, (b) 1.404 S. Hierome, and (c) 1.405 Ruffinus, who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excer∣pta, for natural and genuine. And now I will make this use of it; Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state, should do well to stand close to their principles, and count that the best Episcopacy which is first; and then consi∣der but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair, and see what is gotten in the bargain. For my part, since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it, and then would most certainly have abidden by it, I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height, but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity. But let this be remembred all along, in the specification of the parts of their Jurisdiction. But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience.

* 1.406The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop, summs them up thus, * 1.407 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So likewise the Presbyters, let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop, so is the translation of Isidore, ad verbum. This Council is ancient enough, for it was before the first Nicene. So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly. * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episco∣porum nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare,* 1.408 vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere, says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore.* 1.409 The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo, the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles, viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop. * 1.410 Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo, & quasi animae parentem suscipe. It is the coun∣sel of S. Hierome. Be subject to thy Bishop, and receive him as the Father of thy soul.

I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty, and obe∣dience owing from the Laity to the Bishop. For this account will certainly be admit∣ted by all considering men. God hath intrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders; they therefore are to submit to the government of the Cler∣gie in matters Spiritual with which they are intrusted. For either there is no Govern∣ment at all, or the Laity must govern the Church, or else the Clergie must. To say there is no Government, is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny. To say that the Laity should govern the Church, when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy, is to say, Scripture means not what it says; for it is to say, that the Clergy must be Praepositi, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Praelati, and yet the prelation, and presidency, and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presi∣dents or Prelates, and that it is not in them who are so called. * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferiour to the Clergy, and must in

things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them, with whom their Souls are intrust∣ed; then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy, to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient. Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councils and Fathers, the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop, much more must the Laity, and since the Bishop must rule in chief, and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance, but ever in sub∣ordination to the Bishop, the Laity must obey de integro. For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them.

But for the main, S. Clement in his Epistle to S. James translated by Ruffinus, saith it was the doctrine of Peter, according to the institution of Christ, That Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things; and in his third Epistle; That Presbyters and Deacons, and others of the Clergie must take heed that they do nothing without the li∣cense of the Bishop. * And to make this business up compleat, all these authorites of great antiquity, were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respe∣ctively, but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical; for not only the thing, but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the same is repeated in the twen∣ty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop, for to him the Lords people is committed, and he must give an account for their souls. * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart, and erecting another altar, he is to be deposed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith the 32 Canon) as a lover of Principality: intimating, that he arrogates Epi∣scopal 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 govern and give them laws. It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome,* 1.411 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Theodoret, He adorned and in∣structed Pontus with these laws, so he, reckoning up the extent of his jurisdi∣ction.

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

SECT. XXXVI. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity.

THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters, the inferiour Cler∣gy and the Laity. What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual, I have already twice explicated; and from hence it descended by a close succession, that they who watched for souls, they had the rule over them, and because no regiment can be without coercion, therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes, and coercion of persons. * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it.* 1.412 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop, he must not be received by any else, but by him that did so censure him, unless the Bishop that censured him be dead.* 1.413 The same is repeat∣ed in the Nicene Council; only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops, Si fortè aliquâ indignatione, aut contentione, aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui, excommunicati sint, if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion; and when the Synod is met, hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones. But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum, so the Canon; Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt, dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur, quousque in communi, vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam. The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop, and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod, or their own 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 Bishops: commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid; only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Dea∣cons particularly; so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely, and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction.

The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop,* 1.414 calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refracto∣ry, and disobedient. Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione, vel potestate ad concor∣diam trahat, inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet. If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men, his power must; but if any man list to be contenti∣ous, intimating (as I suppose out of the Nicene Council) with frivolous appeals, and impertinent protraction, the Synod [of Bishops] must condemn him, viz. for his dis∣obeying his Bishops sentence. * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair, intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop, and the other of the Priests and Deacons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.415 &c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod (viz. of Bishops, according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon) or a Priest, or Deacon by his own Bishop, if he meddles with any Sacred offices, he shall be hopeless of absolution. But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops; but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone: And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon; Si quis Presbyter, vel Dia∣conus proprio contempto Episcopo — privatim congregationem effecerit, & altare erexe∣rit, & Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere, nec morem gerere primò & secundò vocanti, hic damnetur omni modo — Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare, & solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus, per potestates exteras opprimatur. What Presbyter soever re∣fuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons, let him be depo∣sed, and if he shall persist to disturb the Church, let him be given over to the secular pow∣ers. * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop, &c. as it is in the fore∣going Canons of Nice and the Apostles. The Result of these Sanctions is this. The Bishop is the Judge: the Bishop is to inflict censures; the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey, or to be deposed: No greater evidence in the world of a 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 constitu∣tion is concerning the Laity, and the Presbyters, 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 Council of Chalcedon,* 1.416 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man, let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop, or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church. Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal, but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon. * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis, exactly of the same Spirit, the same injunction, and almost the same words with the former Canons. Hosius the President said;* 1.417 If any Deacon, or Priest, or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop, that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion.

Thus far we have matter of publick right, and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes, and persons of Clergy-men; and have power of in∣flicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity. And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons, of the General Councils of Nice, and of Chalcedon, of the Councils of Antioch, of Sardis, of Carthage; then it is evi∣dent, that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance, 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 Pres∣byters were in some Churches, and in some times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as S. Ignatius calls them; Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop; yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop, and no concur∣rent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery: but of this hereafter more particularly.

* Now we may see these Canons attested by practice, and dogmatical resolution. S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause; because he, if any man, hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters: and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop, and that absolutely, and inde∣pendently of conjunction with the Presbytery, we are all well enough, and without suspicion. * 1.418 Diù patientiam meam tenui (Fratres Charissimi) saith he, writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church. He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent; and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess, yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar. Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum Domini judi∣cium, neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub ante∣cessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ & contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent. The matter was, that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution with∣out the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon; and this was done without the Bishops leave, by the Presbyters, [Forgetting their own place, and the Gospel, and their Bishop set over them,] a thing that was never heard of, till that time. Totum sibi vendicabant, They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave, yet did this whole affair of their own heads. Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone, suspends them till his return, and so shews that his autho∣rity was independent, theirs was not, and then promises they shall have a fair hear∣ing before him, in the presence of the Confessors, and all the people. Vtar eâ admo∣nitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet, ut interim prohibeantur offerre, acturi & apud nos, & apud Confessores ipsos, & apud plebem Vniversam causam suam. * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority, in absence from his Church, and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See.

But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate; saying, they ought to have asked the Bishops leave, Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est, for so was the Catholick custom ever, that no∣thing should be done without the Bishops leave; but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment, and dishonour the Bishop. Yea,* 1.419 but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi, and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests. What should the Presbyters do in this case? S. Cyprian tells them, writing to the Confessors. Petitiones itaque & desideria vestra Episcopo servent.* 1.420 Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of. But they did not, therefore he suspended them, because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui & cathedrae; Pre∣serve the honour of the Bishops chair, and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave.

The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair; for when a con∣temptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop, he complained to S. Cyprian,* 1.421 who was an Arch-Bishop, and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him, Cum pro Episcopatus vigore, & Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari; When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy. The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question, and is clear evidence for the great autho∣rity of Episcopal jurisdiction, the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Ro∣gatianus by S. Cyprian, Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui, ut eum vel deponas, vel abstineas. Exercise the power of your honour upon him, and either suspend him, or de∣pose him. * 1.422 And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Fe∣licissimus the Schismatick from the Church, vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet, with full authority as becomes a Bishop.

Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom, says, That in reforming the lives of the Clergy, he was too fastuous and severe.* 1.423 Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae, erat plurimis exosus, & veluti furio sum universi declinabant. He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie, that he was

hated by them; which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them; for tyranny is the excess of power, and authority is the subject matter of ri∣gour and austerity. But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio, Nunquam poteris, ô Episcope, hos corrigere, nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos. Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so; but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis. He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers cau∣ses: and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him; for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him. * But here we see that the power of censures was clearly and only in the Bishop, for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy, [Vniversos] And he did actually suspend most of them, [Plurimos:] and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves. Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church,* 1.424 Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent, eos ad templum prohibebat accedere, All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church.

*** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius, Miror sanctum Episcopum, in cujus Parochiâ esse Pres∣byter dicitur,* 1.425 acquiescere furori ejus, & non virgâ Apostolica, virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile, & tradere in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fiat. I wonder (saith he) that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius, and does not break him with his Apo∣stolical rod, that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion.

The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians, is full and mighty in assert∣ing the Bishops power over the Laity, and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy, where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian. Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops, for he saw he should cer∣tainly be condemned, and would fain have been judged by some honourable persona∣ges 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 the Bishops. That's for the jus; and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council; S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence [Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio, & carendum & in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur.] * 1.426 The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed, Eusebius giving sen∣tence, and chose Basilius in his Room.

* But their Grandfather was served no better. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria ser∣ved him neither better nor worse. So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dog∣matum praedicator, prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus, & consiliis nitebatur. Cum vero eum superbire vidisset,* 1.427 & apertè impietatis facinora praedicare, ex ordine Sacer∣dotali removit. The Bishop first admonished the heretick, but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy, he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function.

This crime indeed deserved it highly. It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter, viz. for a personal misdemeanour, and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum, and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi,* 1.428 to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him. Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus, qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia & multa congesserat, & frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat — propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus, ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius, in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio. His restitution was therefore left in his power, because originally his censure was. * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council, Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus, Who was punish∣ed by Triferius the Bishop; Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato, ut ipse Triferius in po∣testate habeat, quando voluerit ei relaxare.

Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick, and excommunicating Exuperanti∣us the Priest, and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council, and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too, which indeed was an act of fa∣vour; for they having complained to the Council, by the Council might have been ab∣solved, but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power.

* These are particular instances, and made publick by acts conciliary intervening.

* But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church.

* 1.429Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho. Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur. Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops, according as the order of their dignity allows. I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bi∣shop, under a Canonical penalty; and so go on ad alia.

In the second Council of Carthage, Alypius Episcopus dixit, nec illud praetermitten∣dum est, ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus, aut excommunicatus,* 1.430 rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda, vel aliud erigendum al∣tare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit, non exeat impunitus. And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons. If any Presbyter being excommunicated, or otherwise punished by his Bishop, shall not desist,* 1.431 but contest with his Bishop, let him by no means go unpunished. * 1.432 The like is in the Council of Chalcedon, the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch, and of the Apostles. But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action.* 1.433 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know, Other faith I know not. They are Bishops; They have power to excommunicate and condemn, and they have power to do what they please: other faith than this I know none. * This is to purpose, and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom, which all ages since have received, with all veneration and devout estimate.

Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius, and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks.* 1.434 〈 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 Nestorius did endeavour to restore them, yet their condem∣nation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd. Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation, which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie, and suspend them, and sometimes depose them. Nay, they are bound to it, Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet (ne per plures serpant dira contagia) separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam. It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound, lest their infection scatter, so S. Austin. * 1.435 And therefore the fourth Council of * 1.436 Carthage commands, Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excom∣municet, That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of their Brethren, (viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine, to be punished in secular tribunals;) For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis, the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion. I add no more, but that ex∣cellent saying of S. Austin,* 1.437 which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindi∣ctive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess. Ergo praecipiant tantum modò no∣bis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt, & faciamus orent pro nobis, non autem nos corripiant, & arguant, si non fecerimus. Imò omnia fiant, quoniam Doctores Ecclesia∣rum Apostoli omnia faciebant, & praecipiebant quae fierent, & corripiebant si non fie∣rent, &c. And again;* 1.438 Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus, pro culparum diversitate diversis, vel minoribus, vel amplioribus, quia & ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium, quâ poenâ in Ec∣clesiâ nulla major est, potest, si Deus voluerit, in correptionem saluberrimam cedere, at∣que proficere. Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess, and to punish the disobedient, and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery, [damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium] a condemnation of the Bishops infliction.

Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom, by the Ca∣nons of three General Councils, and divers other Provincial, which are made Catho∣lick by adoption, and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church, that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy, and of the Lay-people of his Diocess; that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency; that his censures were firm and valid; and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact; in power or exercise; but excommunication and censures to be appropria∣ted to Bishops, and to be only dispatch'd by them, either in full Council, 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, unless in cases of appeal, and then it was in pleno Concilio Epis∣coporum, in a Synod of Bishops; And all this was confirmed by secular authority, as appears in the imperial Constitutions.

* 1.439For the making up this Paragraph complete, I must insert two considerations.

First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance. And se∣condly of Persons.

The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum, speak in most large and comprehensive terms. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They have pow∣er to do what they list. Their power is as large as their will. So the Council of Chalcedon before cited. It was no larger though, than S. Pauls expression, [for to this end also did I write,* 1.440 that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.] A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedi∣ence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And so the stile of the Church runs in descension, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Ignatius, ye must do nothing without your Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to contradict him in nothing. The expression is frequent in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.441 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance,* 1.442 so the Council of Antioch.

* But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subje∣ctam, so S. Ignatius expresses himself. Ye must without your Bishop do nothing; no∣thing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Council 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 Ecclesiastical persons, it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with, it is for a spiritual end, viz. the regiment of the Church, and the good of souls, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance. And what are those things?

1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom 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 eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia.

So the Church us'd to sing. Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cog∣nizance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are all actions civil, all publick violations of justice, all breach of Muni∣cipal laws. These the Church hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Prin∣ces and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae; but then when it is once indulged, that act which does annul such pious vows, is just contrary to that religion which first gave them, and then unless there was sin in the do∣native, the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei & S. Matris Ecclesiae. But this it may be is impertinent.

2. The Bishops All, comes in after this; And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock, by its new distinctive Principles. I say, by its new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the laws of nature, there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian; The Bishop gets nothing of that: But those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the republick) hath introduc'd, all them, and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Faith, Ministration of Sacraments, and Sacramentals, subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour, censures, irregulari∣ties, Orders hierarchical, rites and ceremonies, liturgies, and publick forms of prayer, (as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius, teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies,* 1.443 and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom) and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these, as dispensation of Church-Vessels, and Ornaments, and Goods, receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church, and whatsoever is of the same consideration, according to the 41 Ca∣non of the Apostles. Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat. Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church; adding this reason. Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae, multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere. He that is intrusted with our precious souls, may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people.

3. There are some things of a mixt nature; and something of the secular in∣terest, and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution, and these

are of double cognizance: the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them. Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men, who are both Clergy, and subjects too; Clerus Domini, and Regis subditi; and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae, the secular tribunal punishes, as being a violation of that right which the State must defend, but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy, and hath also an obligation of speci∣al duty to his Bishop, therefore the Bishop also may punish him; And when the com∣monwealth hath inflicted a penalty, the Bishop also may impose a censure, for every sin 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 several respects have peculiar interest; The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity, in which religion hath the deepest interest, and the Church, for the maintenance of faith. And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages, upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience, and at∣tendance upon such solemnities.

4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth, and is a capacity superadded to it, therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King; The Supremacy here is his, and so it is in all things of this nature, which are called [Ecclesiastical] because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae, ad finem religionis, but they are of a different nature, and use from things [Spiritual] because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro, and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity, for such things only are pro∣perly spiritual.

5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only, viz. in∣fliction of censures by excommunications, or other minores plagae which are in order to it. But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God, and their favour to the Church, is assisted by the secular arm, either superadding a tem∣poral penalty in case of contumacy, or some other way abetting the censures of the Church, and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part; an external, and an internal; this is derived from Christ, that from the King, which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction, therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction, viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory.

* And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor, or his Prefect, or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith, not that the Pre∣fect was to Judge of that, or that the Bishops were not; but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick, who would not submit to the power of the Church, but flew to the secular power for assistance, hoping by taking sanctuary there, to ingage the favour of the Prince: In this case the Bishops also appealed thither, not for reso∣lution, but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power. * 1.444 It was so in the case of Aetiu•• the Arian, and Honoratus the Prefect, Constantius being Emperor. For, all that the Prefect did, or the Emperor in this case, was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties, and to incourage the Catholicks; but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops, for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie, for all his confident appeal, and Macedonius, Eleusius, Basilius, Ortasius, and Dracontius for personal delinquencies. * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose, who re∣fused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges, though Delegates of the Emperor. Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse?* 1.445 When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop? To be sure, it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect; for if they had appealed to him, or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article, and not for incouragement and secular assistance, S. Ambrose in his confident Question of [Quando audisti?] had quickly been answered, even with saying, presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius, and Honoratus. * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia, because he refused to answer, except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity. And it is observable that the Arians were the first (and indeed they offered at it often) that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith, for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial, hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party, by making him Umpire. But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction

of powers and jurisdictions; and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty, so nei∣ther betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an ex∣teriour jurisdiction and power. It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia,* 1.446 a man so famous and exemplary, that he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the rule of the Church, that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops, and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cogni∣zance, in stead of a Placet, he gave this answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I wonder that thou being set over thing of a diffe∣rent nature, medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops. The Militia, and the Politia are thine, but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius. Answe∣rable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian, when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him, Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse, That he would be pleased to mend the Article. Respondens Valentinianus, ait, Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari. Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint. Cúm∣que haec respondisset Princeps,* 1.447 in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi. So Sozomen reports the story. The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith, but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops, to whom by Gods law they did ap∣pertain; upon which intimation given, the Bishops convened in Lampsacum. And thus a double power met in the Bishops. A Divine right to decide the Article. Mi∣hi fas non est, (saith the Emperor) it is not lawful for me to meddle; And then a right from the Emperor to assemble, for he gave them leave to call a Council. These are two distinct powers, one from Christ, the other from the Prince. ***

And now upon this occasion, I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration. The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their Diocesses; all, (I mean) in the sence above explicated; they have power to inflict censures, excommunicati∣on 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 cognizance of, or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it, and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases?

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

2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunicati∣on; so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory. For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii, as most certainly she is not, the Church can∣not receive power to put men to death, or to inflict lesser pains in order to it, or any thing above a salutary penance; I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal, then they give the Church what she must not, cannot take. I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death, as any men; but not in the formality of Clergy-men. A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal; and then if any man, or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents, in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them, and pretend to give her another compulsory; they take away the Church-consistory, and erect a vey secular Court, dependant on themselves, and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves, and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for. * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power, is, Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat, He betrays the individual, and inseparable right of holy Church. For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave. Christ is her 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for that, he is her warrant and security. The other is begged or borrowed, none of her own, nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions. * 1.448 I end this consideration 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 affairs of the Church, and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante, as in the sight of God, to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess.

The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge? And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice, I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair, and leave it under that representa∣tion.

Presbyters and Deacons, and inferiour Clerks, and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons; No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge. And all Christs sheep hear his voice, and the call of his shepherd-Ministers. * Theodoret tells a story, that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine, the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop, in these words,* 1.449 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne, that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him, viz. in matters of spiritual import. * And since all power is derived from Christ, who is a King, and a Priest, and a Prophet, Christian Kings are Christi Domini, and Vicars in his Regal power, but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical. * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church, ever since his Kingdom became Christian, and it consists in all things, in which the Priestly of∣fice is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment, and cure of souls, and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own. For when his Sub∣jects became Christian Subjects, himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christi∣an Ruler, and in both capacities he is to rule, viz. both as Subjects, and as Christian Subjects, except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority. And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capaci∣ties. For superiority 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 Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not con∣credited to the King; but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities; the King in potentiâ gladii, the Bishop in potestate clavium. The Sword, and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power. Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus. Quid enim in praesenti saeculo pro∣phetâ gloriosius, Pontifice clarius, Rege sublimius? King, and Priest, and Prophet, are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven. *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity, which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives; were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience. * 1.450 And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles: Diaconi, & reliquus Clerus, unà cum populo Vniverso, Militibus, Principibus, & Caesare, ipsi Episcopo pareant. Let the Deacons and all the Clergy, and all the people, the Souldiers, the Princes, and Caesar himself obey the Bishop. * 1.451 This is it which S. Ambrose said; Sub∣limitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari. Si Regum fulgori compares, & Principum diademati, erit inferius, &c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine, that most blessed Prince, Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem vo∣bis dedit, de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur. Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari, [viz. saecularibus, and in causis simplicis religionis.] So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers.

It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian,* 1.452 preten∣ding the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Dio∣cess to the Arians. His answer was, that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor, but Churches to the Bishop; and so they did by all the laws of Christendom. The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor, exactly the same per omnia, as it is related by Ruffinus. * 1.453 S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Em∣peror, to desire him to go forth of the Cancelli, in his Church at Milaine, shews that then the powers were so distinct, that they made no intrenchment upon each other. * It was no greater power, but a more considerable act, and higher exercise, the forbidding the communion to Theodosius, till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica.* 1.454 It was a wonder∣ful concurrence of piety in the Emperor, and resolution and authority in the Bishop. But he was not the first that did it; For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod, and the severity of the Bishop. De hoc traditum est nobis, quòd Chri∣stianus fuerit, & in die Paschae, i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit,* 1.455 & communi∣care mysteriis, ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum, nisi confiteretur peccata, & inter

poenitentes staret, nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitenti∣am, culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae, deluisset. The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance. And the Emperor did so. Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat, suscepisse. He did it willingly, undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop.

I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery.* 1.456 It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presby∣ters, to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion.

If he be a Captain, a Consul, or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily, forbid him and keep him off, thy power is greater than his.

If thou darest not remove him, tell it me, I will not suffer it, &c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures, than in the foregoing instances, the Church might have exercised censures, and all the parts of power that Christ gave her, without either scandal or danger to her self, or her penitents. But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new in∣gredient put, a great proportion of secular inconveniences, and humane interest, when excommunications, as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Sa∣tan, so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy, or the peoples rage; as then to be buffeted, so now to be deposed, or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects; in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized, and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution,* 1.457 but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest, Bishops have no power of such censures, nor is it law∣ful to inflict them, things remaining in that consistence and capacity. And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's, but is in∣deed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps & multitudo non est ex∣communicanda. A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate.

Thus I have given a short account of the Persons, and causes of which Bishops ac∣cording to Catholick practice did, and might take cognizance. This use only I make of it. Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regi∣ment of souls, such a power, Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari, yet it hath its limits, and a proper cognizance, viz. things spiritual, and the emergencies, and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo, and super∣added, as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth; And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny (as they list to call it) of Episcopacy, and yet call for the Presby∣tery. *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever, which are either sins directly, or by reduction. * 1.458 [All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death.] There they bring in Murders, Treasons, Witchcrafts, Felonies. Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of [Scandalous and offensive.] Nay [Quodvis peccatum,] saith Snecanus, to which if we add this consideration, that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin, there is nothing in the world, good or bad, vitious or suspicious; scandalous or criminal; true or imaginary; real actions or personal; in all which, and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent, either by false accusation, or real injury; but they comprehend in their vast gripe, and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories, besides their own: and being, for this their cognizance they pre∣tend Divine institution, there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory, no ap∣peal from them, but they shall hear, and determine with final resolution, and it will be sin, and therefore punishable, to complain of injustice and illegality. * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy, and the modesty of their several de∣mands, and the reasonableness, and divinity of each vindication examined, I suppose, were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question, the cause would soon be determined, and the little finger of Presbyte∣ry, not only in its exemplary and tried practices, but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns, nay, than the whole body of Episcopacy; but it seldom hap∣pens otherwise, but that they who usurp a power, prove tyrants in the execution, whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate.

SECT. XXXVII. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license.

BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction. The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority, and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation, 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 Of∣fer, 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 shews the superiority of the Bi∣shop over his Presbyters, by the practice of Christendom.

S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question, and here also he brings in succour.* 1.459 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is not lawful 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 ministra∣tion, and having premised a general 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 do not here dispute the matter of right, and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license, but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church? This is sufficient to shew, to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive; and if I mistake not, it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too. For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devo∣tion, in the new spring of Christianity, in the times of persecution, in all the pub∣lick disadvantages of state and fortune, when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience, that then they should have thoughts ambitious, incroaching, of usurpation and advantages, of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority in∣trusted them by Christ, and then too when all the advantage of their honour did on∣ly set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution, and was not, as since it hath been, attested with secular assistance, and fair arguments of honour, but was only in a meer spiritual estimate, and ten thousand real disadvantages. This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men. But however. Valeat quantum valere potest. The question is now of matter of fact, and if the Church of Martyrs, and the Church of Saints, and Doctors, and Confessors now regnant in Heaven, be fair precedents for practices of Christianity, we build upon a rock, though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice.

Upon the hopes of these advantages, I proceed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.460 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart, or erect an Altar (viz. without the Bishops license) let him be deposed; clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concio∣nem, the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies, for preaching or other of∣fices is derived from the Bishop; and therefore 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 and government which belongs to the Bishop. The same thing is also de∣creed in the Council of Antioch, and in the Council of Chalcedon,* 1.461 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All the most Reverend Bishops cried out, this is a righteous law, this is the Canon of the holy Fathers. [This] viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited. * 1.462 Tertullian is some∣thing more particular, and instances in Baptism. Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi au∣thoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae, quo salvo salva pax est; alioquin etiam Laicis jus est. The place is of great consideration, and carries in it its own objection and its answer.

The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism. Then after him, Presbyters and Deacons,

but not without the authority of the Bishop. (So far the testimony is clear) and this is for the honour of the Church.

* But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution, and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance? No indeed. It does not. For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae; and no harm done. For it is honourable for the Church, that her Ministrations should be most ordinate, and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate. But the next words do of themselves make answer, [Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize] That is, without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons. For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated, but yet they ought not to administer it, so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license: so says Tertullian, let him answer it. Only the difference is this, Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or com∣mission to make it lawful in them to baptize any; Presbyters and Deacons may, for their order is a capacity or possibility. ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism, Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist.* 1.463 Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quàm Praesidentium sumimus. The former place will expound this, if there be any scruple in [Praesidentium] for clearly the Christians receive the Sa∣crament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops. I suppose he means [without Episco∣pal license.] Whatsoever his meaning is, these are his words.

The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles, expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority.

If any man shall make assemblies privately, and out of the Church, so despising the Church,* 1.464 or shall do any Church-offices, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the presence of a Priest by the decree of a Bishop, let him be anathema.

The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices with∣out the Bishops license. If they will celebrate Synaxes privately, it must be by a Priest, and he must be there by leave of the Bishop, and then the assembly is lawful. * 1.465 And this thing was so known, that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop. Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit, In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter, aut dissimulantes audacter, praesente, & inconsulto Epi∣scopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda, quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra. In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices (houseling of people is the office meant, communicating them at home) without the consent or leave of the Bishop, being either simply ignorant, or boldly dissembling; imply∣ing, that they could not else but know their duties to be, to procure Episcopal li∣cense for their ministrations. Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est. Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare, ipse honori suo contrarius existit.

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

After this in time, but before in authority, is the great Council of Chalcedon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.466 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers, remain under the power of the Bishops of the City. So that they are for their offices in depen∣dance of the authority of the Bishop. The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals, but extends it self to an indefinite expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way, not submitting to their Bishop, Let them be punished Canonically. So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop, being to be understood according to the exigence of the matter, to wit, the Ministeries of the Clergy in their several offices, the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority.

But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church, we have good witness for it; S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my Author. Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire,* 1.467 nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere, aut signare, nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare, nec eo prae∣sente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis & Sanguinis Christi conficere, nec eo coràm po∣sito populum docere, vel benedicere, &c. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery, nor to baptize any Catechumens, nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs bo∣dy and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command. From this place of S. Leo, if it be set in conjunction with the precedent, we have fair evidence of this whole particular. It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishops leave; So S. Igna∣tius,

so the Canons of the Apostles, so Tertullian, so the Councils of Antioch and Chal∣cedon. It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishops presence without leave, so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joyns them both together, neither in his presence, nor without his leave in any place.

Now against this practice of the Church, if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian, Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo, dicat quis major est Christo.* 1.468 He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God, let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ, viz. whose command it is, that Presbyters should preach. Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave? might not Presbyters do their duty without a license? This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer. * For to the Bishop is com∣mitted the care of the whole Diocess, he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge, he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock, so the Canon of the 1 Apostles, so 2 Ignatius, to the Council of 3 Antioch,* 1.469 so every where; The Presbyters are admitted in partem solicitudinis, but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop, and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum, although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without desig∣nation of a particular charge, either temporary or fixt. And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishops leave, because they are actions of relation, and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred, or some particular person; for a Priest must not preach to the stones, as some say Venerable Bede did, nor communicate alone, the word is destructive of the thing, nor baptize, unless he have a Chrysome Child, or a Catechumen; So that all of the Diocess be∣ing the Bishops charge, the Bishop must either authorize the Priest, or the Priest must not meddle, lest he be (what S. Peter blamed) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Bishop in ano∣thers Diocess: Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing, of con∣secrating, &c. For these he had by his ordination, but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions, and did quoad hoc take him in partem solicitudinis, and concredit some part of his Diocess to his admi∣nistration cum cura animarum.

But then on the other side, because the whole cure of the Diocess is in the Bishop, he cannot exonerate himself of it, for it is a burden of Christs imposing, or it is not imposed at all, therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest 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 Diocess, so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocess, and this appears in these places now quoted; insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place, there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease. In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potestas minoris. And, though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocess, therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate, himself looking to the Metropo∣lis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision; yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocess, there he being present might do any office, because it was in his own charge, which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himself of it; And therefore praesente Episcopo (saith the Council of Carthage, and S. Leo) if the Bishop be present, the Presbyter without leave might not officiate; For he had no subjects of his own, but by trust and delegation, and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence, who could not simul omnibus interesse, but then where he was present, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorpt in the greater, and so without leave might not be exercised; like the stars which in the noon-day have their own natural light, as much as in the night, but appear not, shine not in the presence of the Sun.

This perhaps will seem uncouth in those Presbyters, who (as the Council of Car∣thage's expression is) are contrarii honori Episcopali; but yet if we keep our selves in our own form, where God hath placed us, and where we were in the Primitive Church, we shall find all this to be sooth, and full of order. For Consider. The el∣der the prohibition was, the more absolute and indefinite it runs. [Without the Bi∣shop it is not lawful to baptize, to consecrate, &c.] So Ignatius. The prohibition is without limit. But in descent of the Church it runs, [praesente Episcopo] the Bishop being present they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same original, to wit, the Vniversality of the Bishops Jurisdiction, but the reason of the difference of expression is this. At first Presbyters were in Cities with

the Bishop, and no parishes at all concredited to them. The Bishops lived in Cities, the Presbyters preached and offered 〈 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 therefore the first pro∣hibitions run indefinitely, they must not do any Clerical offices sine Episcopo, unless the Bi∣shop sends them. But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct, and the Pres∣byters fixt upon ordinary charges, then it was only praesente Episcopo, if the Bishop was present, they might not officiate without leave. For in his absence they might do it, I do not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence; as it is to this day, when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge, he also gives power hoc ipso, of offi∣ciating in that place. So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions, then they were to have leave, but this license was also temporary; but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum, and that was done in subsidium Muneris Episcopalis, because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices, and therefore con∣credited it to a Presbyter, but if he was present, a new leave was necessary, be∣cause as the power always was in the Bishop, so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person, himself if he listed, might offici∣ate.

All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin, of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter, Valerius the Bishop being a Greek born, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for publick orations, Eidem Presbytero (viz. to Austin) potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi, ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem, & Consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesi∣arum. He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter, to preach in the Church, even while himself was present, indeed against the use and Custom of the African Churches. And for this Act of his he suffered soundly in his report. * For the case was thus. In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresie, 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 pre∣sence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saith Socrates.) Thence came this Custom in the African Churches.* 1.470 But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able, and himself for want of Latin so unfit, he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the custom of the African Churches. But he adds this reason for his excuse too, it was not indeed the custom of Africa, but it was of the Oriental Churches. For so Possidonius proceeds, Sed & ille vir venerabilis, ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens, in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach, Dummodo factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minime posse cernebat, which determines us fully in the business. For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices, which shows the Presbyters in their several charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixt residence, to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Solicitudi∣nis, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess.

Against this it is objected out of S. Hierom, and it is recorded by Gratian, Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis,* 1.471 atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere. Behold, I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bi∣shop. So Gratian quotes it indeed, but S. Hierome says the express contrary, unless we all have false copies. For in S. Hierome it is not [Ecce ego dico] but [Nec ego dico.] He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop. Indeed S. Hierom is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona, because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach, nor to bless, &c. This, perhaps it was not well done, but this makes not against the former discourse; for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave, the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplication of Christians, and Parishes, yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave, for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome dis∣putes against Rusticus, to shew he did amiss, because he would not give his Presby∣ters license. * And this he also reprehends in his Epistle ad Nepotianum, Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui. That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop, that was an ill custom, to wit, as things then stood, and it was mended presently after, for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence, but it was by license from their Ordinary.

For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned, Postea cur∣rente & volante hujusmodi famâ, bono praecedente exemplo, accepta ab Episcopis po∣testate Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis, populis tractare coeperunt verbum Dei. By occasion of this precedent it came to pass, that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence, having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do. And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulg∣ed to them in the second Council of Vase. Now if this evidence of Church practice be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome,* 1.472 let him then first be reconciled to him∣self, and then we are sure to be helped. For in his dialogue against the Luciferians, his words are these, Cui si non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes. Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Pres∣byter, neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. Because the Bishop hath an eminent power, and this power is necessary, thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Dea∣con may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave.

** This whole discourse shews clearly not only the Bishops to be superiour in ju∣risdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge.

SECT. XXXVIII. Reserving Church-goods to Episcopal dispensation.

** DIVERS other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops juris∣diction 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 af∣terwards at the Bishops. So it is in the 41 Canon of the Apostles, so it is in the Council of Gangra, and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensati∣on, without express delegation from the Bishop, as appears in the seventh and eighth Canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council. * And therefore when in success of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop; of this the third Council of Toledo complains, and makes remedy, commanding,* 1.473 Vt omnia se∣cundum constitutionem antiquam, ad Episcopi ordinationem & potestatem pertineant. The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo. Noverint autem conditores basi∣licarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt, nullam se potestatem habere,* 1.474 sed juxta Canonum instituta, sicut Ecclesiam, ita & dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere. These Councils I produce not as Judges, but as witnesses in the business, for they give concurrent testimony, that as the Church it self, so the dowry of it too did be∣long to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons.* 1.475 For so the third Council of To∣ledo calls it, antiquam Constitutionem, and it self is almost 1100 years old, so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church, though it be taken in a narrow sence. For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon, commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop.

SECT. XXXIX. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess, or to travel without leave of the Bishop.

ADDE to this, that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess. So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles, under pain of suspension or deposition, 〈 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 return when his Bishop calls him. The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch, cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, cap. 17. the censure there is, 〈 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 himself in the Diocess of another Bi∣shop. But with license of his Bishop, he may. Sacerdotes, vel alii Clerici conces∣sione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare. But this is fre∣quently renewed in many other Synodal decrees,* 1.476 these may suffice for this in∣stance.

* But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church, but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops li∣cense; which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico, but extends it almost to a despotick; But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty, and Clerical subordination to their Bishop. The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.477 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters. And who are to grant these letters is expres∣sed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.478 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop; and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law, De consecrat. dist. 5. can. non oportet, which puts in the clause of [Neque etiam Laicum,] but this was beyond the Council. The same is in the Council of * 1.479 Agatho. The Council of ‖ 1.480 Venice adds a censure, 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 Council of Epaunum,* 1.481 Presbytero, vel Diaecono sine An∣tistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat. The first Council of Tourayne in France, and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop, and duty in all his Clergy.

SECT. XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased.

BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction, unless it be also remunerative▪ and [the Princes of the Nations are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Benefactors,] for it is but half a tye to indear obedience, when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit, that which cannot profit. And therefore the Primitive Church, to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire, gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself, and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted. Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere, nec illic ministrent in gradu suo un∣de recedere noluerunt.* 1.482 So it is decreed in the African Code, They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church, must not enjoy what they have already.

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

1. In the Acts of the Apostles, which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church, we find that [Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church] and [they passed through Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, appointing them Elders. * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and he says of himself and Titus, [For this cause I sent thee to Crete, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters, or Bishops (be they which

they will) in every City.] The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ signifies that the whole action was his. For that he ordained them no man questions, but he also appointed them,* 1.483 and that was, saith S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as I commanded thee. It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance, that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters. Let there be half so much shown for the people, and I will also endeavour to promote their inte∣rest. *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture; It is of the seven that were set over the widows. * But first, this was no part of the hierar∣chy: This was no cure of souls: This was no divine institution: It was in the dis∣pensation of monies: It was by command of the Apostles the election was made, and they might recede from their own right: It was to satisfie the multitude: It was to avoid scandal, which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise: It was in a tem∣porary office: It was with such limitations, and conditions as the Apostles prescri∣bed them: It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made, if we may believe S. Epiphanius, so that they were Presbyters before this choice: And lastly, It was only a nomination of seven Men, the determination of the business, and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles, and indeed the whole power [Whom we may appoint over this business] and after all this, there can be no hurt done by the objection, especially since clearly, and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presby∣ters was in the Apostles own persons (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Ignatius of Evodias; Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour, or Bishop,* 1.484 by the Apostles) and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops, as in the instances before reckoned. Thus the case stood in Scrip∣ture.

2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law, and practice Apostolical. The People did not, might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church. So the Council of Laodicea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood.* 1.485 The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy, Bishops and Presbyters. But who then must elect them? The Council of Nice determines that, for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made, but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained, which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Cler∣gy.

* 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone, (as I have already proved.) Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom, that no Pres∣byter might be ordained sine titulo, without a particular charge, which was always custom, and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon, and we shall per∣ceive that the ordainer was the only chuser; for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge; and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance, but part of the Bishops cure, for he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The care of the Churches in all the Diocess; as I have already shown. And therefore when S. Jerome, according to the custom of Christendom,* 1.486 had specified some particular or∣dinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops, as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus, and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus, Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo, cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes, Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act,* 1.487 having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ.

Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop. Haec spectet Sacerdos, & quod cuique congruat, id officii de∣putet. Let the Bishop observe these rules,* 1.488 and appoint every one his office as is best answe∣rable to his condition and capacity. And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch, how being an Arian, Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens, licet turpem ha∣bentes vitam, ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem, & Diaconatus evexit. Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur & Apostolica dogmata defendebant, absque honore deseruit.* 1.489 He advanced his own faction, but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious. So he did. The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands. This thing is evident and notorious; and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest, but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd, and carried him to their Bishop Valerius, intreating him to ordain him Priest. This indeed is true, that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required; In ordinandis Clericis (Fratres Charissimi) solemus vos ante consulere, & mores ac merita singulorum com∣muni consilio ponderare. It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick

fame of Clerks to be ordained; It was usual (I say) with him, but not perpetual▪ for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus, and divers others, as I shewed else∣where.

4. In election of Bishops (though not of Priests) the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest, and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffra∣ges, or publick acclamations. But first; This was not necessary. It was otherwise among the Apostles, and in the case of Timothy, of Titus, of S. James, of S. Mark, and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges. 2. This was not by law, or right, but in fact only. It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council, and the 31 Canon of the Apostles, which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power.* 1.490

Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended. Quando ipsa [plebs] maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere, &c. Thus he is usually cited, the people have power to chuse, or to refuse their Bishops, and this comes to them from Divine authority. No such matter. The following words expound him better, [Quod & ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus, atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur: That the Bishop is chosen publickly, in the presence of the people, and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony; or as S. Pauls 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 publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required, appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle. For what is the Divine autho∣rity that he mentions? It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga, before all the congregation. The people chose not, God chose Eleazar, and Moses consecrated him, and the people stood and looked on; that's all that this argument can supply. * Just thus Bishops are, and ever were ordained, Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscien∣tiâ, In the sight of the people standing by; but to what end? Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. All this while the election is not in the people, nothing but the publick testimony and examination, for so it follows, Et sit ordinatio justa & legitima quae omnium suffragio, & judicio fuerit examinata.

** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn, either the sence or the truth of his assertion. The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons, (but this we have already examined,) the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate; it was indeed done in the presence of the people. * But here it is con∣siderable that at this surrogation of S. Matthias, the Number of the persons present was but 120, of which eleven were Apostles, and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters, they make up 83, and then there remains but 37 of the Laity, of which many were women, which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle, and whether they do or do not, the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices; so that let the worst come that is imaginable, the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy, whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided, and of a distinct or disagreeing interest. * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will, yet all this whole busi∣ness was miraculous and extraordinary; For though the Apostles named two Candi∣dates, yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation. And yet for all this, it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots. An non licebat ipsi [Petro] eligere? licebat, & quidem maxime; verum id non facit ne cui videretur gra∣tificari. Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs. For all he had not as yet received the holy Ghost,* 1.491 yet he had power himself to have compleated the election. So S. Chrysostom.

So that now, if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of publick testimony, and extends it to a suffrage of formal choice, his proofs of the divine authority are invalid, there is no such thing can be deduced from thence, and then this his complying so much with the people (which hath been the fault of many a good man) may be reckoned together with his rebaptization. But truth is, he means no more than suffrage of testimony, viz. That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame, and approved of before God and all the people, and this is all the share they have in their election. * And so indeed himself summs up the whole business, and tells us of another jus Divinum too.

[Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divinâ, & Apostolicâ observatione, observandum est & tenendum,

quod apud nos quoque, & fer•• apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quinque conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissi∣mè novit. It is most diligently to be observed, for there is a Divine tradition, and an Apostolical ordinance for it, and it is used by us and almost by all Churches, that all the Bishops of the Province assembled to the making of right ordinations, and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation.]

So that the Bishops were to make the formal election, the people to give their judgment 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 Di∣vinum for the Bishops chusing a Colleague, or a Brother-Bishop, as much as for the presence of the people, and yet the presence was all. And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony, yet the election was clearly in the Bishops, and that by Divine tradition, and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian; And thus it was in all Churches almost.

In Africa this was, and so it continued till after S. Austins time,* 1.492 particularly in the choice of Eradius his successor. It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostom tells us. It was so in Spain, as * 1.493 S. Isidore tells us; and in many other places, that the people should be present, and give acclamation, and tumultuary approbation; but to the formal election of the Clergy, made by enumeration of votes and subscription, the people never were admitted.

5. Although that in times of persecution, at first, and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetned, to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution, and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop, if they did, though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination, Ne plebs in vita Episcopum non optatum, aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minùs religiosa quàm con∣venit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit, (for so S. Leo expresses the cause) yet the formality and right of proper election was in the Clergy,* 1.494 and often so practised with∣out any consent at all, or intervening act of the people. The right, I say, was in the Bishops, so it was decreed in the Nicene Council, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.495 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 confirmed, and established by the Metropolitan. No Presbyters here all this while, no people. * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Councils, where the Fathers degraded some Bishops, and themselves appointed others in their Rooms. * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus. In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt. They sent Basilius Bishop in his room, saith Sozomen. * 1.496 Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum, & consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus, (said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon.) Let Bassianus show that he was made Bishop of Ephesus by a Synod of Bishops,* 1.497 and according to the accustomed Law. The Law I shewed before, even the Nicene Canon. The Fathers of which Council sent a Synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, to tell them they had de∣posed Melitius from the office of a Bishop, only left him the name, but took from him all power, Nullum verò omnimodò habere potestatem, neque eligendi, neque ordinan∣di, &c. Neither suffering him to chuse nor to ordain Clerks.* 1.498 It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary, placitos sibi eligere, as the Epistle expres∣ses it in the sequel, to chuse whom they listed. But the Council deposed Melitius, and sent Alexander their Bishop and Patriarch to rule the Church again. ** And parti∣cularly to come home to the case of the present question, when Auxentius Bishop of Milaine was dead, and the Bishops of the Province, and the Clergy of the Church, and the people of the City, were assembled at the chusing of another, the Emperor makes a speech to the Bishops only, that they should be careful in their choice. So that although the people were present, Quibus pro fide,* 1.499 & religione etiam honor de∣ferendus est, (as S. Cyprians phrase is) To whom respect is to be had, and fair comply∣ings 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 half of this.

6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops, who chose their own suc∣cessors; it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head, and proclaim that they were weary of him. In those days they had more piety. * Age∣lius did so, he chose Sisinnius, and that it may appear it was without the people,

they came about him, and intreated him to chuse Marcian, to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor; he complied with them, and appointed Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius, whom he had first chosen, to succeed Mar∣cian. * 1.500 Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin; for though the people named him for their Priest, and carried him to Valerius to take Orders, yet Valerius chose him Bishop. And this was usual; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Epiphanius expresses this case,) it was ordinary to do so in many Churches.

7. The manner of election in many Churches was various, for although indeed the Church had commanded it, and given power to the Bishops to make the election, yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters, or the Chapter chose one out of themselves. S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria, from S. Mark's time to Heraclas and Dionysius. * 1.501 S. Ambrose says, that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted, but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat. As one died so the next 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 choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day, and therefore to take it from the Clergy, in whom it always was by permission of Princes, and to interest the people in it, is to recede à traditionibus Majorum, from the religion of our fore∣fathers, and to Innovate in a high proportion.

9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage (by way of testimony, I mean, and approbation) did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop, the people at last, according to their usual guise, grew hot, angry, and tumultuous, and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect; and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation, and often grew up to Sedition and Murder; and therefore although they were never admitted, (unless where themselves usurped) farther than I have declared, yet even this was taken from them, especially, since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them, they knew not how to distinguish between power and right, they had not well learned to take denial, but began to obtrude whom they listed, to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked; and the soleship of election, which by the Anci∣ent Canons was in the Bishops, they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution.

* I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council; Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur (understand him in the sences above explicated) sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent, hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres: Of old time Bishops were chosen, not without the suffrage of the people (for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation) but when this occasioned many seditions and tu∣mults, the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province. And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain, and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible.

Truth is, the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone, and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleo∣phae, the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem, as Eusebius witnesses; it was propter singularem honorem,* 1.502 an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us; and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too. Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam. The rule of the Apostles, and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order. * And then in descent, even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election, for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse; by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper, even to a testimonial; and yet I deny not but they did often take more,* 1.503 as in the case of Nilammon, quem cives elegerunt, saith the story out of Sozomen, they chose him alone, (though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice) and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency, partiality, faction, sedition, cruelty, and Pagan baseness, that they were quite interdicted it, above 1200 years agone. * 1.504 So that they had their little in possession but a little while, and never had any due, and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right, but a popular ambition, and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces.

But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far, for they that strive to in∣troduce a popular election, would as fain have Episcopacy out, as popularity of electi∣on let in. So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous. For I consider, that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's 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 chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted. And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election, if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Epi∣scopacy. But for all their plundering and confounding, their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary.

SECT. XLI. Bishops only did Vote in Councils, and neither Presbyters nor People.

IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bi∣shops, nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality. Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars, so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catho∣lick Church, were made by conventions of Bishops, without the intervening or con∣currence of Presbyters, or any else for sentence and decision.

The instances of this are just so many as there are Councils. S. Athanasius repre∣hending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith, Si judicium Episcoporum est (saith he) quid cum eo commune habet Imperator?* 1.505 It is a judgment to be passed by Bishops, (meaning the determination of the article,) and not proper for the Emperor. And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting President in a Council, Quis enim videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Epi∣scoporum, non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis? He that sits President makes himself chief of the Bishops, &c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councils, and to make decision. And therefore conventus Episcoporum, and Concili∣um Episcoporum are the words for General and Provincial Councils. Bis in anno Epi∣scoporum Concilia celebrentur, said the 38 Canon of the Apostles; and Congregatio Epi∣scopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret.* 1.506 And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter, Ob quam causam (saith Eusebius) conventus Episcoporum,* 1.507 & Concilia per singulas quasque provincias con∣vocantur. Where by the way, it is observable, that at first, even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops, and Presbyters had no interest in the decision; however we have of late sate so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies, that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts. But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this. To them I leave it; And because the four general Councils are the Precedents and chief of all the rest, I shall only instance in them for this particular.

1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus. 〈 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 they had been more, the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony, in that he makes it to be a mystical number; Nam & Abraham trecentos decem & octo duxit ad bellum — De Conciliis id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem & octo Sacerdotes — velut trophaeum extulerunt,* 1.508 ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum, quod eodem numero in Conciliis, fidei habemus oraculum, quo in histo∣riâ, pietatis exemplum. Well! 318 was the Number of the Judges, the Nicene Fa∣thers, and they were all Bishops, for so is the title of the subscriptions, Subscripserunt trecenti decem & octo Episcopi qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt; 13 whereof were Chorespiscopi, but not one Presbyter, save only that Vitus, and Vincentius subscribed as Legates of the Bishop of Rome, but not by their own authority.

2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That's the title

of the Canons. The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in G. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bi∣shops. And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking, Imperator (saith he) nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium Episcoporum convocat.* 1.509 Here indeed some few Bishops ap∣peared by Proxy, as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter, and Atar∣bius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader, and about some four or five more. * This only, amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus, Auxanon, Helladius, and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters. But their modesty hinders not the truth of the for∣mer testimonies; They were Bishops, saith the title of the Council, and the Orati∣on, and the Canons, and Socrates; And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae, because before Johannes Apameensis subscribed, which seems to in∣timate that one of them was the Bishop, and the other but a Presbyter indeed, with∣out a subterfuge of modesty, the titles distinguish them. For John was Bishop in the Province of Caelo Syria, and Auxanon of Apam••a in Pisidia.

3. The third was the Council of Ephesus, Episcoporum plurium quàm ducentorum, as it is often said in the acts of the Council [of above 200 Bishops] but no Presbyters, for, Cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt, horum subscripti∣onibus contenti fuimus.* 1.510 We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bi∣shops, saith the Council; and Theodosius junior, in his Epistle to the Synod, Illicitum est (saith he) eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immis∣ceri tractatibus. It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bi∣shops to be interess'd in Ecclesiastical assemblies.

4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was, sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum, of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia. But in all these assemblies, no meer Presbyters gave suffrage, except by legation from his Bishop, and delegation of authority. And therefore when in this Council some Laicks, and some Monks, and some Clergie-men, not Bishops, would interest themselves, Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force; Si praeter nostram evocationem, aut per∣missionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur, Who come without command of the Empress, or the Bishops permission. Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist, to dispute, and to be present in all the action; And thus they often did suffer Abbots, or Archimandrites to be there, and to subscribe too, but that was praeter regulam, and by indulgence only, and condescension; For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe, he answered, Non suum esse, sed Epi∣scoporum tantum subscribere,* 1.511 It belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Councils. For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council, Mitte foras super∣fluos, Concilium Episcoporum est.

But I need not more particular arguments, for till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils, and that Coun∣cil we know savour'd too much of the Schismatick: but before this Council, no ex∣ample, no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters, either to Oecumenical, or Provincial Synods. Indeed to a Diocesan Synod, viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy, I find 32 Presbyters subscribing. This Synod was neither Oecumenical nor Provinci∣al, but meerly the Convocation of a Diocess. For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots, and 32 Presbyters. It was indeed no more than a visitation, or the cal∣ling of a Chapter, for of this we receive intimation in the seventh Canon of that assem∣bly,* 1.512 Vt in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent, that was their summons, Et in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium: so that here is intimation of a yearly Sy∣nod 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 Provincial Council. For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise, and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie, Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores;* 1.513 Quî namque fieri potest, ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero ausculte∣mus? Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests, but Priests do from Bishops.* 1.514 Nam vestrum est eos instruere (saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy, and all the Diocess) eorum est vobis obedire, ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini. And a little after; Audire ergo eum attentius oportet, & ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei, monita autem vitae à Presbyteris 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 general concernment, must also be of general Scrutiny. I answer, it is true, unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body, as he hath in the Bishops, and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand, and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths, and to follow their faith,* 1.515 whom he hath set over us. And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all, and is handled by all, not in diffusion, but in representation. For Ecclesia est in Episcopo, & Episcopus in Ecclesiâ, (saith S. Cyprian) the Church is in the Bishop (viz. by representment) and the Bishop is in the Church (viz. as a Pilot in a ship, or a Master in a family, or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence) and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called (in Eusebius) conventus orbis terrarum, and by S. Austin,* 1.516 * 1.517 consensus totius Ecclesiae, not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons, but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops, and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all, I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils, for I doubt not but they have souls too.

But however, if this argument were concluding in it self, yet it loses its force in England, where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament, and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy, nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons. * 1.518 In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters, as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges, whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council (it was an old heretical trick.) Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam, audiant cum populo, non ut quisquam Judex resideat, sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen, & eligat quem sequatur. So may Presbyters be present, so they may judge, not for others, but for themselves. And so may the people be pre∣sent, and anciently were so; and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches, [ubi populus judicat] not for others, but for themselves, not by external sen∣tence, but internal conviction, so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited alle∣gation.

There is no considerable objection against this discourse, but that of the first Coun∣cil of Jerusalem; where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision. For although in the story of celebration of it, we find no man giving sentence but Peter, and James; yet in Acts 16. they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, decrees judged by the Apostles, and Elders. But first, in this the difficulty is the less, because [Presbyter] was a gene∣ral word for all that were not of the number of the twelve, Prophets, Evangelists, Pa∣stors and Doctors. And then secondly, it is none at all, because Paul and Barnabas are signally, and by name reckoned as present in the Synod, and one of them Prolo∣cutor, or else both. So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies. 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story, yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there ei∣ther is any difficulty, or where any is pretended. And of this, I have already given account.

* I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils. It is a pretty pageant; only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church, against the exigence of Scripture, which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers, against the gravity of such assemblies, for it would force them to be tumultuous, and at the best, are the worst of Sanctions, as being is∣sues of popularity, and to summe up all, it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils. The pretence is, in the Synodal * 1.519 letter written in the name of [the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren] that is, (says Geta,) The Apostles, and Presbyters, and People. But why not Brethren, that is, all the Deacons, and Evan∣gelists, and Helpers in Government, and Ministers of the Churches? There is no∣thing either in words, or circumstances to contradict this. If it be asked who then are meant by Elders, if by [Brethren] S. Luke understands these Church-officers? I answer, that here is such variety, that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren, yet here are enough to furnish both with variety, and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word, nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question, nor authorising the decretal. For besides the twelve Apostles, there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters, and something more, as Paul and Barnabas, and Silas, and Evangelists, and Pastors besides, which might furnish out the last appellative sufficient∣ly. 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 do. Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men, are called in Scrip∣ture, chief men among the brethren. But this is too known, to need a contestation.

I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod. De vobis au∣tem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus, quàm qui absolutè versamini quid amplius dicam non habeo, quàm quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere, neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae, & universali Synodo adversari. Lay-men (says the Emperor) must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiastical, nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church, or Councils Oecumenical. They must not meddle, for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision. * 1.520 And now after all this, what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saith Aristotle,) They are all evidences of power and authority, to deliberate, to determine or judge, to make laws. But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable. The first may be∣long fairly enough to Presbyters, but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops.

SECT. XLII. And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks.

LASTLY, as if all the acts of Jurisdiction, and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop, over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy, the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri, the Bishops Presbyters; as having a propriety in them, and therefore a superiority over them, and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae, so he was of the persons too, a Ruler in propriety. * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine, Ecclesiae adhuc (saith he) per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens, I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters. And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church, — Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri?* 1.521 (saith Posthumianus.) If the Bishop have but one Presbyter, must one be taken from him? Id sequor (saith Aurelius) ut conveniam Episcopum ejus, atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur. And it was resolved, Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo. No man shall retain anothers Bishop, with∣out 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 himself,* 1.522 Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo. He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter; and, Arsenius, cujus brachium dicebatur excisum, lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii. Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader. Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii, &c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests.* 1.523 So Theodoret, Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presby∣ters,* 1.524 as himself witnesses. Paulinianus sometimes to visit us (saith S. Hierome to Pammachius) but not as your Clerk, Sed ejus à quo ordinatur. His Clerk who did or∣dain. But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances.

The summ is this. The question was, whether or no, and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church. Their doctrine and pra∣ctice have furnished us with these particulars. The power of Church goods, and the sole dispensation of them, and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop. For the Clergy, and Church possessions were in his power, in his administration: the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave: they might not be pre∣ferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop: in their own Church∣es the Bishop had sole power to prefer them, and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it: without him they might not baptize, not con∣secrate the Eucharist, not communicate, not reconcile penitents, not preach; not only, not without his ordination, but not without a special faculty, besides the

capacity of their order: The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions, even by the decree of the Apostles themselves, and the doctrine of Ignatius, and the constitution of S. Clement, of the Fathers in the Council of Arles, Ancyra, and Toledo, and many others:

The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy, and people of their Diocess by the concur∣current suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, in Carthage, Antioch, Sardis, Aquileia, Taurinum, Agatho, and by the Emperor, and by the Apostles; and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents, and absolving them as they saw cause, and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function, that they have supreme and universal spiritual power, (viz. in the sence above explicated) over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess, as, [That they are higher than all power, the image of God, the figure of Christ, Christs Vicar, President of the Church, Prince of Priests, of authority imcomparable, unparallell'd power,] and many more, if all this be wit∣ness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction, we have their depositions, we may proceed as we see cause for, and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state, for that is truly a reformation [Id Dominicum quod primum, id haereticum quod posterius,] and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations.

SECT. XLIII. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Pa∣rishes.

BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam; that Bishops were not Diocesan, but Parochial, and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction, that perhaps our Village, or City 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 Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them, in all the particular advantages of the former instances.

2. If the Bishops had the Parishes, what cure had the Priests? so that this will debase 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 low∣er than a Diocess, it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish. For set a Bishop where you will, either in a Diocess or a Parish, a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination, the same distance still. So that this objection upon suppo∣sition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side, but make it far worse, it will not advance the Presbytery, but it will depress the whole Hierar∣chy, and all the orders of Holy Church.

* But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy, I will consider it in little, and besides that it does no body any good advantage, I will repre∣sent it in its fucus, and shew the falshood of it.

1. Then. It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Pa∣rishes. For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus, who lived al∣most 100 years after Christ, and divided Rome into seven Parishes, assigning to every one a Presbyter. So Damasus reports of him in the Pontifical book. Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris, & septem Diacons ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedi∣cantem propter stylum veritatis. He divided the Parishes, or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters. The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life, Hic Presby∣teris Ecclesias divisit, & coemiteria, parochiásque & dioeceses constituit. Marcellus in∣creased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit coemiterium viâ Salariâ, & 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis, & propter sepulturas Martyrum. He made a Sepulture or coemi∣tery for the burial of Martyrs, and appointed 25 Titles or Parishes: but he adds [quasi Dioe∣ceses] as it had been Dio••esses, that is, distinct and limited to Presbyters, as Diocesses

were to Bishops; and the use of Parishes which he subjoyns clears the business; for he appointed them only propter baptismum, & poenitentiam multorum & sepulturas, for baptism, and penance, and burial; for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes, but in the Mother-Church. Thus it was in the West.

* But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these, for Eusebius reports out of Philo, that the Christians in S. Mark's time had several Churches in Alexandria.* 1.525 Etiam de Ecclesiis quae apud eos sunt, ita dicit. Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus, &c. But even before this there were Bishops. for in Rome there were four Bishops, before any division of Parishes, though S. Peter be reckoned for none. And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria, S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop, and before that time S. James was Bishop of Jerusa∣lem, and in divers other places where Bishops were, there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus's tim•• for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to seve∣ral Parishes, he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba, and desires him to do so too in his Diocess, as appears in his Epistle to him.

* For indeed necessity required it, when the Christians multiplied and grew to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.526 as * 1.527 Cornelius called the Roman Christians, a great and an innumerable people; and did implere omnia, as Tertullians phrase is, filled all pla∣ces, and publick and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves, and increased jealousies in others, and their publick offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage, then they were forced to divide congregations, and assign∣ed several Presbyters to their cure, in subordination to the Bishop, and so we see the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were. At first in Rome there were none,* 1.528 Evaristus made seven, Dionysius made some more, and Marcellus added 25, and in Optatus's time there were 40.

Well then! The case is thus. Parishes were not divided at first, therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution. Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish, therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's or∣dinance an independant body, for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all, neither absolute nor in dependance neither; and then for the main issue, since Bishops were before Parishes (in the present sence) the Bishops in that sence could not be Parochial.

* But which was first, of a private congregation or a Diocess? If a private con∣gregation, then a Bishop was at first fixt in a private congregation, and so was a Pa∣rochial Bishop. If a Diocess was first, then the Question will be, how a Diocess could be without Parishes, for what is a Diocess but a jurisdiction over many Pa∣rishes?

* I answer, it is true that Diocess and Parish are words used now in contradiction; And now a Diocess is nothing but the multiplication of many Parishes: Sed non fuit sic ab initio, For at first, a Diocess was the City and the Regio suburbicaria, the neigh∣bouring towns in which there was no distinction of Parishes: That which was a Dio∣cess in the secular sence, that is, a particular Province or division of secular prefe∣cture, that was the assignation of a Bishops charge. * 1.529 Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, heads of the Diocess, (saith Pliny,) meaning in re∣spect of secular jurisdiction; so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment. And it was so upon great reason, for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth, it was of less suspicion to the secular power, while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the political, as if of purpose to shew their mutual consistence, and its own subordination. ** And besides this, there was in it a necessity; for the subjects of another Province or Diocess could not either safely or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not ingage them; but being all of one prefecture and Diocess, the necessity of publick meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom. And this, which at first was a necessity in this case, grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Council of * 1.530 Chalcedon, and of Constantinople in ‖ 1.531 Trullo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Commonwealth, viz. in her regiment and prefe∣cture.

* But in the modern sence of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocess, as they are taken in relation; but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself or his Presbyters had converted, and he also had

the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country. So that although he had not all the Diocess actually in communion and subjection, yet his charge, his Diocess was so much. Just as it was with the Apostles, to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocess, yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them.

And now to the Question. Which was first, a particular congregation or a Diocess? I answer, that a Diocess was first, that is, the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts; And S. Mark was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted. * But ordinarily the Apostles, when they had converted a City or Nation, then fixt Bishops upon their charge, and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocess; But then, this City, or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocess before it was a particular congregation, yet it was part of the Apostles Diocess, and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively.

S. Paul was ordained by the prophets at Antioch, Apostle of the Uncircumcision; All the Gentiles was his Diocess, and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted. So that, absolutely, a diocess was before a particular congregation. But if a Diocess be taken collectively, as now it is, for a multitude of Parishes united under one Bishop, then one must needs be before 20, and a particular congregation before a Diocess; but then that particular congrega∣tion was not a parish, in the present sence, for it was not a part of a Diocess taking a Diocess for a collection of Parishes; but that particular Congregation was the first fruits of his Diocess, and like a Grain of Mustard-seed that in time might, and did grow up to a considerable height, even to a necessity of distinguishing titles, and parts of the Diocess, assigning several parts, to several Priests.

2. We see that the Primitive Bishops, before the division of parishes, had the City, and Country; and after the division of Parishes, had them all under his jurisdiction, and ever, even from the Apostles times had several provinces (some of them I mean) within their limits and charges. * The 35 Canon of the Apostles gives power to the Bishop to dispose only of those things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are under his Diocess and the Neighbour villages, and the same thing is repeated in the ninth and tenth Canons of the Council of Antioch, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ancient Canon of our forefathers; and yet it self is elder than three of the general Councils, and if then it was an Ancient Canon of the Fathers, that the City, and Villages should be subject to the Bishop, surely a Primitive Bishop was a Diocesan.

But a little before this was the Nicene Council,* 1.532 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 Customes 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 〉, according to the old custome of their forefathers, and yet that was so early, that S. Anthony was then alive, who was born in S. Irenaeus his time, who was himself but second from the Apostles.

It was also a good large parish that Ignatius was Bishop of, even all Syria, Caelosyria, Mesopotamia, and both the Ciliciae. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bishop of Syria he calls himself in his Epistle to the Romans, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so Theodoret: and besides all these, his Successors, in the Council of Chalcedon,* 1.533 had the two Phaeniciae, and Arabia yielded to them by composition. These alone would have made two or three reasonable good parishes, and would have taken up time enough to preambulate, had that been then the guise of Christendome. * 1.534 But ex∣amples of this kind are infinite. Theodorus Bishop of Cyrus was Pastor over 800 parishes, Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Thebais, Mareotis, Libya, Ammoniaca, and Pentapolis, saith S. Epiphanius; And his predecessor Julinianus successor of Agrip∣pinus was Bishop * 1.535 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Churches about Alexan∣dria. Either it was a Diocess, or at least a plurality. * 1.536 S. Chrysostome had Pontus, Asia, and all Thrace in his parish, even as much as came to sixteen prefectures; a fair bounds surely; and so it was with all the Bishops, a greater, or a lesser Diocess they had; but all were Diocesan; for they had several parishes, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias, saith Epiphanius in his Epistle to John of Jerusalem,* 1.537 and in his book contra haereses, Quotquot enim in Alexandriâ Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt, sub uno Archiepiscopo sunt, privatimque ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiasticas neces∣sitates,

ita ut habitatores vicini sint uniuscujusque Ecclesiae. * 1.538 All Italy was the parish of Liberius (saith Socrates.) Africa was S. Cyprians parish, saith S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Bazil the great was parish-Priest to all Cappadocia. But I rather believe, if we examine their several stories, they will rather prove Metropolitans, than meer parochians.

Thirdly, The ancient Canons forbad a Bishop to be ordained in a Village, Castle, or Town. It was so decreed in the Council of Laodicea before the first Nicene. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.539 In the Villages, or Countreys, Bishops must not be constituted. And this was renewed in the Council of Sardis,* 1.540 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is not lawful to ordain Bishops in Villages or little Towns to which one Presbyter is sufficient, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but Bishops must ordain Bishops in those Cities where Bishops formerly have been. * So that this Canon does not make a new constitution, but perpetuates the old sanction. Bishops ab antiquo were only ordained in great Cities, and Presbyters in little Villages. Who then was the Parish Curate? the Bishop or the Priest? The case is too ap∣parent.

Only, here it is objected that some Bishops were of small Towns, and therefore these Canons were not observed, and Bishops might be, and were parochial, as S. Gregory of Nazianzum, Zoticus of Comana, Maris in Dolicha. The one of these is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by * 1.541 Eusebius; and another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by * 1.542 Theodoret, a little Town. This is all is pre∣tended for this great Scarcrow of parochial Bishops.

* But, first, suppose these had been parishes, and these three parochial Bishops, it follows not that all were; not those to be sure, which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces, and Kingdomes. Secondly, It is a clear case, that Nazianzum, though a small City, yet was the seat of a Bishops throne, so it is reckoned in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made by Leo the Emperour, where it is accounted inter thronos Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum,* 1.543 and is in the same account with Caesarea, with Ephesus, with Crete, with Philippi, and almost fourscore more. * 1.544 As for Zoticus he indeed came from Comana, a Village town, for there he was born, but he was Episco∣pus Otrenus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, saith (a) Nicephorus. * 1.545 And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha, it was indeed such a small City as Nazianzum was, but that proves not but his Diocess and teritory was large enough. Thus was Asclepius vici non grandis, but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus.* 1.546 His seat might usually be in a little City, if it was one of those towns in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordained, and yet the appurtenances of his Diocess large, and extended, and too great for an hundred Parish••Priests.

Fourthly, The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan, not Parochial: for they were institued to assist the Bishop in part of his Countrey-charge, and were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Visiters (as the Council of Laodicea calls them.) But what need such Suffragans, such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish? Indeed they might possibly have been needful for the managing of a City-parish, especially if a whole City was a Parish, as these objectors must pretend, or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial. But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop, and did their offices in the countrey, while the Bishop was resident in the City, either the Bishops parish extended it self from City to Coun∣trey; and then it is all one with a Diocess: or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus, or Visiter. * The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch describes their use and power. Qui in villis & vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi....placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant, ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias. They were to govern the 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 follows in the Canon; he must not ordain any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitur, & regio; Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself and all the countrey is subordinate.

5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith S. Ignatius.* 1.547 There is one altar in every Church, and one Bishop together with the Pres∣bytery, and the Deacons. Either then a whole City, such as Rome or Jerusalem (which as Josephus reports had 400 Synagogues,) must be but one Parish, and

then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocess as a Parish in that latitude, or if there were many Parishes in a City, and the Bishop could have but one of them, why, what hinder'd but that there might in a City be as many Bishops, as Presbyters? For if a Bishop can have but one Parish, why may not every Parish have a Bishop? But by the ancient Canons, a City, though never so great, could have but one for it self and all the Countrey, therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop, nor the Bishop a meer parish-Priest.

Ne in unâ civitate duo sint episcopi, was the constitution of the Nicene Fathers,* 1.548 as saith Ruffinus; and long before this, it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop, that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance, Is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere,* 1.549 ubi vi∣debat esse Presbyteros quadraginta & sex. Novatus (the Father of the old Puritans) was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters; intimating clearly that a Chuch that had two Bishops is not Catholick, but Schismatick at least, (if both be pretended to be of a fixt resi∣dence) 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 against God, if S. Ambrose say true, Deus enim singulis Ec∣clesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit.* 1.550 God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church; and of what extent this one Church was, may easily be guessed by him∣self who was the Ruler, and Bishop of the great City, and province of Millain. * And therefore when Valerius * 1.551 as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo, whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time, S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonical, and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius, but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius. It was the same case in Angelius, a Novatian Bishop or∣daining Marcian to be his successor, and Sisinnius to succeed him, the acts were in∣deed irregular, but yet there was no harm in it to this cause, they were ordained to succeed not in conjunction. * 1.552 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saith Sozomen) It is a note of Schism, and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair. Secundus Episcopus nullus est (saith S. * 1.553 Cyprian) And as Cornelius reports it in his Epistle to S. Cyprian, it was the voice of the confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism, by erecting ano∣ther Bishop; Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus, unum spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere. And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Fe∣lix. For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should return to his See, on condition that Felix the Arrian might be Bishop there too, they derided the suggesti∣on, crying out, One God, one Christ, one Bishop. So Theodoret reports. But who lists to see more of this, may be satisfied (if plenty will do it) in (a) 1.554 S. Chrysostom, (b) 1.555 Theodoret, S. (c) 1.556 Hierom, (d) 1.557 Oecumenius, (e) 1.558 Optatus, S. (f) 1.559 Ambrose,* 1.560 and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian, de Vnitate Ecclesiae, sive de singularitate Praelatorum.

6. Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been Parishes, yet what were the Metropoli∣tans, and the Primates, were they also Parish-Bishops? Surely if Bishops were parochial, then these were at least Diocesan by their own argument, for to be sure they had ma∣ny Bishops under them. But there were none such in the Primitive Church? yes most certainly. The 35. Canon of the Apostles tells us so, most plainly, and at the worst, they were a very primitive record. Episcopus gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur, quem velut caput existiment, & nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam ge∣rant, quàm ea sola quae parochiae propriae, & villis quae sub eâ sunt, competunt. The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their Primate, and esteem him as their head, and do no∣thing without his consent, but those things that appertain to their own Diocess. And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse Metropolitanum Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere,* 1.561 &c. The Bishops of every province must know that their Metropolitan-Bishop does take cure of all the province. For this was an Apostolical Constitution (saith S. Clement) that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archslamines, Archbishops, Primates,* 1.562 or Patriarchs should be placed, qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia, & majora (quoties necesse foret) negotia in fide agitarent, & secundùm Dei voluntatem, sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli, definirent. * 1.563 Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council, as appears in the sixth Canon before cited; Nay, Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the Metropolitans that he

had under him to the Council of Ephesus, by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours, so that it was a Patriarchat.* 1.564

These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops. Now then either Bishops were Parochial, or no: If no, then they were Dio∣cesan; if yea, then at least many of them were Diocesan, for they had (according to this rate) many Parochial Bishops under them. * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle, but as now adays it is made, the consideration of it is material to the main Question. Only this I add; That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own, and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Pri∣mitive, because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge, and no more, and each of these towns had in them 170 families, and were bound to have no more, how should this man be confuted? It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question, by pretending that the Bishops were only Parochial, not Diocesan, and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest. Most certainly, themselves could not believe the allegation, only they knew it would raise a dust. But by Gods providence, there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it.

SECT. XLIV. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired.

ANOTHER consideration must here be interposed concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the several Churches. For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine insti∣tution, or Apostolical ordinance, yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church, for those men that call the Bishop a Pope, are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too, and to make every Dio∣cess a Roman Consistory.

1. Then, the first thing we hear of Presbyters (after Scripture I mean, for of it I have already given account) is from the testimony of S. Hierome, Antequam studiain religione fierent,* 1.565 & diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli &c. communi Presbyterorum consi∣lio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Before factions arose in the Church, the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters. Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches, or after Bishops were appointed. If before Bishops were appointed, no hurt done, the Presbyters might well rule in com∣mon, before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the Diocess beside. For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock until God should declare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom he would make their ruler.* 1.566 And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defailance in time of persecution, and so were put to penance, praeceperunt eas Praeposi∣ti tantisper sic esse, donec Episcopus constituatur. The Presbyters, whom sede vacante he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos, they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop. * But, if S. Hierome means this saying of his, after Bishops were fixt, then his expression answers the allegation, for it was but communi Consilio Presbyterorum, the Judicium might be solely in the Bishop, he was the Judge, though the Presbyters were the counsellors. For so himself adds, that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth, it was decreed in all the World, ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret, all the care of the Diocess was in the Bishop, and therefore all the power, for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop, and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters. * And so S. Ignatius stiles them, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop. But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius, The Bishop is the Ruler, without him though all concurr'd, yet nothing could be done, nothing attempted; The Bishop was Superiour in all power and authority, He was to be obeyed in all things, and contradicted in nothing; The Bishops judgment was to sway,* 1.567 and nothing must seem pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishops sentence: this, and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of, is in Ignatius; And now let their assistance and counsel extend

as far as it will, the Bishops authority is invulnerable. But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierom's. Sect. thither I refer the Reader.

2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us, if any man, for of all the Bishops, he did acts of the greatest condescention, and seeming declination of Episcopal authority. But let us see the worst. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri—solus rescribere nihil potui,* 1.568 quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere. And again, quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere, tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi,* 1.569 ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere. And a third time,* 1.570 Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium & sen∣tentiam spectat, praejudicare ego & soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo. These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in Materiâ juridicâ; The sum whereof is this, that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence, and resolved to do nothing without their advice. But then, consider also, it was, statui apud me, I have resolved with my self to do nothing without your Counsel. It was no necessity ab extrà, no duty, no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty, it was his own voluntary act. 2. It was as well Diaconorum, as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction, as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles; Cyprianus Presbyteris, ac Diaconis fratribus salu∣tem: So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common, than the Deacons by any Divine Law, or Catholick practice. 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too, and that will as well disturb the Jus Divinum of an independant Presbytery, as of an independant Episcopacy.

But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled, for all this was volun∣tary in S. Cyprian, like Moses, qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit ut solus possit praeesse populo,* 1.571 seniores elegit (to use S. Hierome's expression) who when it was in his power alone to rule the people, yet chose seventy Elders for assistants. For as for S. Cyprian, this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired. For he shews what himself alone could do. Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ, & religione, quam satis novi, his literis & hortor & mando &c. I intreat and Command you—vice meâ sungamini circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit, Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs. He intreats them pro dilectione, because they loved him, he Commands them pro religione, by their religion; for it was a piece of their religion to obey him, and in him was the government of his Church, else how could he have put the Presbyters, and Deacons in substitution?

* Add to this; It was the custome of the Church, that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks, yet the Clergy did approve, and examine the persons to be ordained, and it being a thing of publick interest, it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation, and ministration too (and for this S. Chrysostome was accused in Concilio nefario [as the title of the edition of it, ex∣presses it] that he made ordinations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it,* 1.572 he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church, for so he ordained Celerinus, so he ordained Optatus, and Saturnus, when himself was from his Church, and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the mini∣stration of the daily offices. *** He did as much in jurisdiction too, and censures; for himself did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus, and Repostus, and Irene, and Paula, as appears in his 38, and 39 Epistles; and tells * 1.573 Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by vertue of his Episcopal authority. And the same power singly, and solely, he exercised in his acts of fa∣vour and absolution; Vnus atque alius obnitente Plebe & contradicente,* 1.574 mea tamen facilitate suscepti sunt. Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed, but yet the absolution said to be his own act, against the people and without the Clergy. For he alone was the Judge, insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresie that the Bishop was not obeyed, Nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos,* 1.575 & ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur, and that one high Priest in a Church, and Judge instead of Christ is not admitted. So that the Bishop must be one, and that one must be Judge, and to acknowledge more, in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresie. Farther yet, this Judicatory of the Bishop is independant, and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit, & dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus, and again,* 1.576 habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus: rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus. The Bishop is Lord of his own actions, and may do what seems good in his own eyes, and for his actions he is to account to Christ.

This general account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6th, and 8th Epistles, and indeed, the whole Question. But for the 18th Epistle, there is something of peculiar answer. For first, it was a case of publick concernment, and therefore he would so comply with the publick interest as to do it by publick council. 2dly, 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 publick and solemn trial reconcil'd, it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent, and Martyrdom but seldom. 3dly, The common-council which S. Cyprian here said he would expect, was the council of the Confessors, to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publick assoyling of such penitents, who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome. So that this is evidently an act of positive, and temporary discipline; and as it is no disadvan∣tage to the power of the Bishop, so to be sure, no advantage to the Presbyter. * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered, and that runs some∣thing higher, —tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesu∣mere. It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ. But from this we are fairly delivered by the title. Cypriano, & Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus; Caldonius salutem. It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters, but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan; and now, what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so publick consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan. He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolical, and so he did, and no harm done to the present Question, of the Bishops sole and independent power, and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery, who had nothing to do beyond ministery, counsel, and assistance.

3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was, there were not always a Colledge of Presbyters, but only in the greatest Churches; for sometime in the lesser Cities there were but two, Esse oportet, & aliquantos Presbyteros, ut bini sint per Ecclesias, & unus in civitate Episcopus, so S. Ambrose, sometimes there was but one in a Church. Post-humianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case.* 1.577 Deinde qui unum [Presbyte∣rum] habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri? The Church of Hippo had but one. Valerius was the Bishop, and Austin was the Priest; and after him Austin was the Bishop, and Eradius the Priest. Sometimes not one, as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited, of a Church that hath never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died; and once at Hippo they had none, even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd. In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Judge alone, I am sure he had but little company, sometimes none at all.

4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty,* 1.578 and possibility of Scandal, for so S. Ambrose intimates, Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Concilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ (understand, in these Churches where Presbyters were fixt) yet this might be necessary, and was so indeed in some degree at first, which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presby∣ters; so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops. At first I say it might be necessary. For they were times of persecutions, and temptation, and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time, and agonies of spirit, it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism; for a discontented spirit will hide it self, and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus, rather than not take complacence in an imaginary security and revenge. 2dly, As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty, and what they could not receive from publick decision, it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance, and deliberation. For although, by the Canons of the Apo∣stles, Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods, yet persecution interve∣ning, they were rather twice a year a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dispersion than 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 successive experience that must give opportu∣nity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars, and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age, a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been, when the fre∣quency of general Councils, and provincial Synods, and the peace of the Church, and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers, and Decretals of Bishops,

and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary. 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel, their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures. For let it be considered; they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop, whether they think of what follows. For either they must have Presbyters ordain∣ed without a title, which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years, or else they must be forced to Non-residence. For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary, and daily occurrencies of the Church, unless either they have no cure of their own, or else neglect it? And as for the extraordinary, either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan, or he may be assisted by a Synod, if the Canons already constituted do not aid him, but in all these cases the Presbyter 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 failed, and then the desuetude abroga∣ted the Law, which before, custome had established. [quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio] saith S. Ambrose, he knew not how it came to be obsolete, but so it was,* 1.579 it had expired before his time. Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches (I mean in Great ones) In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum,* 1.580 actum Presbytero∣rum, we have still (saith S. Hierome) in the Church our Senate, a Colledge, or Chapter of Presbyters, (he was then at Rome or Jerusalem) but they were not consulted in Church affairs, and matter of jurisdiction, that was it, that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass. And thus it is to this day. In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too, but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction, just so it was in S. Ambrose his time, and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular, the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils, and therefore is no violation of a divine right, for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions, where∣in so much sanctity, and authority, and Catholicism and severe discipline were con∣junct; and then besides, it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiqui∣ty, but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops, and positive discipline in the Church, and conveniency in the thing for that present, and counsel in the Presbyters, and a trouble to the Presbyters persons, and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge.

* One thing more before I leave. I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected. Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest, solus autem auferre non potest.* 1.581 A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest, a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest. Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presby∣ters with the Bishop in imposition of censures.

* To this I answer, first it is evident, that he that can give an honour can also take it away, if any body can; for there is in the nature of the thing no greater diffi∣culty in pulling down, than in raising up. It was wont always to be accounted easier; therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church, founded indeed upon good institution, but built upon no deeper foundation, neither of nature or higher institution, than its own present authority.

But that's enough, for we are not now in question of divine right, but of Catholick and Primitive practice. To it therefore I answer, that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter, was not the Chapter, or Colledge of Presbyters; but a com∣pany of Bishops, a Synodal sentence, and determination, for so the Canon runs, qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui: sed praesentati Synodali Judicio, quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri. And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage. If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused, their own Bishop shall judge them,* 1.582 not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more, in the case of a Presbyter; three of a Deacon; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them. So that by this Canon, in some things the Bishop might not be alone, but then his assistants were Bishops, not Presbyters, in other things he alone was judge without either, and yet his sentences must not be clancular, but in open Court, in the full Chapter; for his Presbyters must be present; and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Coun∣cil of Carthage, Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum:* 1.583 alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur. Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory

was kept, lest the sentence should be clandestine, and so illegal, but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum, for it is, sententia Episcopi, The Bishops sentence, and the Clerks presence only; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy, even by this Canon it self, which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction.

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

SECT. XLV. So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary.

WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self, now from the same principles let us see what it is to us. And first; Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary, even to the being and constitution of a Church. That runs high, but we must follow our leaders. * 1.584 S. Ignatius is express in this question. Qui intra altare est, mundus est, qua∣re & obtemperat Episcopo, & sacerdotibus. Qui vero foris est hic is est, qui sine Episco∣po, Sacerdote, & Diacono quicquam agit, & ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam, & infideli deterior est. He that is within the Altar, that is, within the communion of the Church, he is pure, for he obeys the Bishop, and the Priests. But he that is without, that is, does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy, he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel. Necesse itaque est, quicquid facitis, ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis. It is necessary that what ever ye doe, ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop. Quid enim aliud est episcopus, &c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power? So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian, and Catho∣lick communion; he that does not, is worse than an Infidel. The same also he affirms again. Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi, qui vero ab illo declinant, & cum male∣dictis communionem amplectuntur, hi cum illis excidentur. All they that are on Christs side, are on the Bishops side, but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them. * 1.585 If then we will be Christs servants, we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop. It is the condition of Christianity. We are not Christians else. So is the intimation of S. Ignatius. * 1.586 As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos, where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles, Inde (saith he) per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio, & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constitua∣tur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur. Hence is it, that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued, so that the Church hath its being, or consti∣tution by Bishops, and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them. Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror &c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God, I wonder any man should question it, &c. And therefore as in all build∣ings, the foundation being gone, the fabrick falls, so if ye take away Bishops, the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God, for it can no longer be called a Church. This account we have from S. Cyprian, and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his * 1.587Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum, where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church, [Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata, & pastori suo Grex adhaerens, The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor, and a people united to their Bishop] for that so he means by Sacerdos, appears in the words subjoyned, Vnde & scire debes Episco∣pum in Ecclesia esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse, & frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt &c. As a Bishop is in the Church, so the Church is in the Bishop, and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church; and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good, if they communicate in conventicles, and forsake their Bishop.

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

than to the greater misery, the want of Bishops. Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose.* 1.588 When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate, to this purpose that the Catholick faith might ex∣pire (so he was sure it would, if this device were perfected) ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur, the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council, and having considered of the command of the Tyrant, Sacra turba Pon∣tificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum, cogitantes aut regis iracundiam, si qua forsan existeret, mitigandam, quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent, aut si per∣secutionis violentia nasceretur, coronandos etiam fidei confessione, quos dignos inveniebant promotione. It was full of bravery and Christian sprite. The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God, rather than man, and to consecrate Bishops in all places, hoping the King would be appeased, or if not, yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome. They did so. Fit repente communis assumptio, and they all strived who should be first, and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost. They were sure they might go to heaven (though persecuted) under the conduct of a Bishop, they knew, without him the ordinary passage was obstructed.

Pius the first Bishop of Rome, and Martyr, speaking of them that calumniate,* 1.589 and disgrace their Bishops, endeavouring to make them infamous, they add (saith he) evil to evil, and grow worse, non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit, & crescit in templum Dei; Not considering that the Church of God doth consist, or is establisht in Bishops, and grows up to a holy Temple? To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome,* 1.590 because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacer∣dotis dignitate pendet, The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity.

SECT. XLVI. For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop.

THE Reason which S. Hierome gives, presses this business to a further particular. For if an eminent dignity, and an unmatchable power be not given to him, tot effici∣cientur schismata, quot Sacerdotes. So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary, because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved; and we know that unity, and being, are of equal extent, and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop, then where there is no Bishop, no pretence to a Church; and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick. For unity which the Fathers press so often, they make to be dependant on the Bishop. Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos diri∣mere, sed Vnimini Episcopo, subjecti Deo per illum in Christo (saith S. Ignatius.* 1.591) Let nothing divide you, but be united to your Bishop, being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop. And it is his conge to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus, opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Jesu Christo, in quo manete perunitatem Dei & Episco∣pi, Farewell in Christ Jesus, in whom remain by the Vnity of God and of the Bishop. * 1.592 Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo [Episcopo] ut Ecclesia à Domino Jesu & Dominus à Patre suo, ut omnia per Vnitatem consentiant. Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop, as the Church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may con∣sent in Vnity.

* Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quàm inde quòd Sa∣cerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos,* 1.593 & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Hence come Schisms, hence spring Heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high Priest, alone to be the Judge. The same S. Cyprian repeats again, and by it we may see his meaning clearer. Qui vos audit,* 1.594 me audit &c. Inde enim haereses & schismata obortae sunt & oriuntur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo digna∣tione Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur. The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresie and Schism. And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons, that any Man should have any meetings, or erect an Altar out of the communion of his

Bishop, that if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished with the highest censures, as appears in the 32. Canon of the Apostles, in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra, the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch, and the great Council of Chalcedon, all which I have before cited. The sum is this, The Bishop is the band, and ligature of the Churches Unity;* 1.595 and separation from the Bishop is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Theodorets expression is; a Symbol of faction, and he that separates is a Schismatick.

But how if the Bishop himself be a heretick, or schismatick? May we not then sepa∣rate? Yes, if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops, but then he is sure to be deposed too, and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop. For till he be declared so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his Diocess, lest they by so doing become their Judges Judge, and when he is declared so, no need of withdraw∣ing 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 lawful; and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy; That is the quintessence, and spirit of schism, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institution.

SECT. XLVII. And Hereticks.

BUT is it not also heresie? Aerius was condemned for heresie by the Catholick Church. The heresie from whence the Aerians were denominated was, sermo furiosus magis quàm humanae conditionis, & dicebat, Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum, nihil dissert hic ab illo.* 1.596 A mad, and unmanly heresie, to say that a Bishop, and a Priest are all one. So Epiphanius, Assumpsit autem Ecclesia, & in toto mundo assensus factus est, antequam esset Aerius, & qui ab ipso appellantur Aeriani. And the good Catholick Father is so angry at the heretick Aerius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is called Aerius, aeriis spiritibus pravitatis, for he was possessed with an unclean spirit, he could never else have been the inventer of such heretical pravity. S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of hereticks, and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue, that he is no Catholick Christian that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines, amongst which, this is one of the principal. Philastrius does as much for him.

But against this it will be objected. First, That heresies in the Primitive Cata∣logues are of a large extent, and every dissent from a publick opinion, was esteemed heresie. 2dly, Aerius was called heretick, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop and a Presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius, and Saint Austin. Thirdly, He was never condemned by any Council, and how then can he be called heretick?

I answer; that dissent from a publick, or a received opinion was never called heresie, unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholick doctrine. For the Fathers many of them did so, as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion; yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of hereticks; but such things only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to Catholick belief, though in minoribus articulis, or to a holy life. 2dly, It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions, and heretical. But I cannot help it if they did, let him and them agree it, they are able to answer for themselves. But yet they accused him also of Arianism; and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresie, because the Fathers called him heretick in one particular upon a wrong principal? We may as well say this, as deny the o∣ther. 3dly, He was not condemned by any Council. No. For his heresie was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men; as Epiphanius observes, and it made no long continuance, neither had it any considerable party. * But yet this is certain, that Epiphanius and Philastrius, and S. Austin called this

opinion of Aerius a heresy and against the Catholick belief. And themselves affirm that the Church did so; and then it would be considered, that it is but a sad imployment to revive old heresies, and make them a piece of the New religion.

And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aerius himself was so inconside∣rable as not to be worthy noting in a Council, yet certainly the one half of his error is condemn'd for heresie in one of the four General Councils, viz. the first Council of Constantinople.* 1.597 〈 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 Aerius come under one of these titles for a condemn'd heretick? Then see forward. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here is enough for Aerius and all his hyper∣aspists, new and old: for the holy Council condemns them for hereticks who do indeed confess the true faith, but separate from their Bishops, and make conventi∣cles apart from his Communion. Now this I the rather urge, because an Act of Parliament made 10 of Elizabeth does make this Council, and the other three of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresies.

I end this particular with the saying of the Council of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a Crabstock and something like Aerius,) cited by Burchard;* 1.598 Nullâ ratione Clerici aut Sacerdotes habendi sunt, qui sub nullius Episcopi disciplinâ & providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acephalos, id est, sine capite Priscae Ecclesiae con∣suetudo nuncupavit. They are by no means to be accounted Clergy-men, or Priests, that will not be governed by a Bishop. For such men the Primitive Church call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, headless, witless people.

This only. Acephali was the title of a Sect, a formal heresie, and condemn'd by the Ancient Church, say the Fathers of the Council of Paris. Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may perhaps be another conviction for the necessity of Episcopal regiment. Nicephorus can best inform us. Eodem tempore, & Acephali, quo∣rum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit, &c.* 1.599 Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy. But why were they called Acephali? id est, sine capitè, quem sequuntur haere∣tici; Nullus enim eorum reperitur author à quo exorti sunt (saith Isidore.) But this can∣not be, for their head is known, Severus was the heresiarch. But then why are they called Acephali? Nicephorus gives this reason,* 1.600 and withal a very particular account of their heresie, Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quòd sub Episcopis non fuerunt. They refused to live under Bishops. Thence they had their name, what was their heresie? They denyed the distinction of Natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies, but they had more; for they were trium capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores, saith Isidore, they opposed three Canons of the Council of Chalcedon. One we have heard,* 1.601 what their other heresies were, we do not so well know, but by the Canon of the Coun∣cil of Paris, and the intimation of their name we are guided to the knowlege of a second; They refused to live under the government of a Bishop. And this also was impugnatio unius articuli in Chalcedone, for the eighth Canon of the Council of Chalce∣don commands that the Clergy should be under Episcopal government. But these Acephali would not, they were Antiepiscopal men, and therefore they were condemn'd hereticks; condemn'd in the Council of Paris, of Sevil, and of Chalcedon.

But the more particular account that Nicephorus gives of them I will now insert, because it is of great use. Proinde Episcopis, & Sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque baptismus juxta solennem, at{que} receptum Ecclesiae morem apud eos administratur, ne{que} oblatio, aut res aliqua divina facta, ministeriúmve Ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communionem verò illi à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes feriis pascalibus in minu∣tissimas incisam partes convenientibus ad se hominibus dederunt. Quo tempore quam quis∣que voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem. Et propterea quod quilibet, quod si visum esset, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, atque haereticorum turba exorta est. It is a story worthy observation. When any Bishop died they would have no other consecrated in succession, and therefore could have no more Priests when any of them died. But how then did they to baptize their Children? Why, they were fain to make shift, and do it without any Church-solemnity. But, how did they for the holy Sacrament, for that could not be consecrated without a Priest, and he not ordained without a Bishop? True, but therefore they, while they had a Bishop, got a great deal of bread consecra∣ted, and kept a long time, and when Easter came, cut it into small bits, or crums rather, to make it go the farther, and gave it to their people. And must we do so too? God forbid.

But how did they when all that was gone? For crummes would not last always. The story specifies it not, but yet I suppose they then got a Bishop for their necessity to help them to some more Priests, and some more crumms; for I find in the Council of Sevil the Fathers saying, Ingressus est ad nos quidam ex haeresi Acephalorum Episcopus; they had then it seems got a Bishop,* 1.602 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 Bishops? No. For every man (saith Nicephorus) might do what he list, and if he had a mind to it, might put his fancy into the Creed, and thence came innumerable troops 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; clearly proving that want of Bi∣shops is the cause of all Schism, and recreant opinions that are imaginable.

* 1.603I sum this up with the saying of S. Clement the Disciple of S. Peter, Si autem vobis Episcopis non obedierint omnes Presbyteri, &c. tribus, & linguae non obtemperaverit, non solùm infames, sed extorres à regno dei, & consortio fidelium, ac à limitibus Sancti Dei Ec∣clesiae alieni erunt. All Priests and Clergy-men, and people and Nations, and Languages that do not obey their Bishop, shall be shut forth of the communion of Holy Church here, and of Heaven hereafter. It runs high, but I cannot help it, I do but translate Ruffinus, as he before translated S. Clement.

SECT. XLVIII. And Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great Honour.

IT seems then we must have Bishops. But must we have Lord Bishops too? That is the question now, but such an one as the Primitive piety could never have imagined. For, could they, to whom Bishops were placed in a right and a true light, they who believed, and saw them to be the Fathers of their souls, the Guardi∣an of their life and manners (as King Edgar call'd S. Dunstan) the guide of their con∣sciences, the instruments and conveyances of all the blessings heaven uses to pour upon us, by the ministration of the holy Gospel; would they, that thought their lives a cheap exchange for a free, and open communion with a Catholick Bishop; would they have contested upon an aiery title, and the imaginary priviledge of an honour, which is far less than their spiritual dignity, but infinitely less than the burden, and charge of the souls of all their Diocess? 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 spiritual heraldry.

1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command. Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum, imaginem Dei referentem. Honour the Bishop as the image of God, as the Prince of Priests. Now since honour, and excellency are terms of mutual relation, and all excellency that is in men, and things, is but a ray of divine excellency; so far as they participate of God, so far they are honourable. Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead, and bears Gods image, certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable. And since honor est in honorante, it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself, but it tells us our duty, we must honour him, we must do him honour: and of all the honours in the world, that of words is the cheapest, and the least.

S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let them be accounted worthy of double ho∣nour. 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. * 1.604 The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy, uses this expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood, let him be advanced to the highest honour. * 1.605 Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam, excusans me, & declinans honorem cathedrae, & potestatem, (saith S. Clement, when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair.) 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 Melchisedech, yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron, Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus, & in civitate constitutus, & in Scripturis sacris conditus, cha∣rus & preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet. Every High-Priest ordained in the City (viz. a Bishop) ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men. Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent, eique servire, & obedientes ad salutem suam fide∣liter existere, scientes quòd sive honor, sive injuria quae ei defertur, in Christum redundat▪ & à Christo in Deum. The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent, and therefore he is to be obeyed, knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop, it is done to Christ, and so to God. * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself? He that despiseth you despiseth me. If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest, then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect up∣on Christ, yet what is done to the Bishop is far more, and then there is the same rea∣son of the honour. And if so, then the Question will prove but an odd one; even this, Whether Christ be to be honoured or no, or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people? for if the Bishops be, then he is. This is the condition of the Question.

2. Consider we, that all Religions, and particularly all Christianity did give Ti∣tles 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 Jews, and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion. Prophets were called [Lords] in holy Scrip∣ture. [Art not thou my Lord Elijah?] said Obadiah to the Prophet. [Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day?] said the children in the Pro∣phets Schools. So it was then. And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Ho∣noured every where but in his own Country. And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular com∣placence and insinuation. Angels, and Governours, and Fathers of our Faith, and Stars,* 1.606 Lights of the World, the Crown of the Church, Apostles of Jesus Christ, nay, Gods, viz. to whom the Word of God came; and of the compellation of Apostles, particularly, Saint Hierom saith, that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ,* 1.607 it was as Magnifically spoken, as if he had said, Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris, Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris; And yet Bishops are Apostles, and so called in Scripture. I have proved that already.

Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee, forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles, in order to a Kingdom, and an earthly Principality. For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons, viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom; for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias. To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a di∣rect antithesis; And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners, as if they had meant to supplant the rest, and get the best preferment from them, to wit, in a temporal Kingdom. No, (saith our blessed Saviour) ye are all deceived. [The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority, and are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.608 Benefactors] so the word signifies, [Gracious Lords] so we read it, [But it shall not be so with you.] What shall not be so with them? shall not they exercise authority? [Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould?] Surely the Apostles or no body. Had Christ authority? Most certainly. Then so had the Apostles, for Christ gave them his, with a sicut misit me pater, &c. Well! the Apostles might, and we know they did exercise authority. What then shall not be so with them? Shall not they be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria, the Ptolomies, whose Honorary appellative that was, would have questioned him highly for it. But if we go to the sence of the word, the Apostles might be Benefactors, and therefore might be called so. But what then? Might they not be called Gratious Lords? The word would have done no hurt, if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality.

For as for the word [Lord] I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi, or Master, or Doctor, or Father. What shall we think now?* 1.609 May we not be called Doctors? [God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors, saith Saint Paul.] Therefore we may be called so. But what of the other, the prohibi∣tion runs alike for all, as is evident in the several places of the Gospels, and may no man be called Master, or Father? Let an answer be thought on for these, and the same will serve for the other also without any sensible error. It is not the word, it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity, and an

affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles. * And if we mark it, our Blessed Saviour points it out himself. [The Princes 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 temporal Regiment, your Apostolate must be Spiritual. 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 Servant; It seems then among Christs Disci∣ples 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 greatness 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 〉.* 1.610 It must not be [as the Princes of the Gentiles] but it must be [as the son of man] so Christ sayes expresly.* 1.611 And how was that? why, he came to Minister and to serve, and yet in the lowest act of his humility (the washing his Disciples feet) he told them, [ye call me Lord, and Master, and ye say well, for so I am. It may be so with you. Nay, it must be as the son of Man; But then, the being called Rabbi, or Lord, nay, the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio & regimine, in a spiritual superintendency, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may stand with the humility of the Gospel, and office of Ministration.

So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word * 1.612 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment, even with an absolute and de∣spotick, and is so used in holy Scripture, viz. in sequiorem partem. God gave autho∣rity to man over the creatures,* 1.613 〈 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, the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.614 And this we know how it must be exercised, 〈 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 vessel. 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 Criti∣cism. It is clear, that the form 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 son of man; so must your Regiment be, for sicut misit me Pater, &c. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. It must be a government, not for your Impery, but for the service of the Church. So that it is not for your advancement, but the pub∣lick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers ex∣press the authority and regiment of Bishops. * 1.615 Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur, sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae (saith Origen.) And Saint Hie∣rom; Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint, non Dominos; And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him, Domine verè sancte, & suscipiende Papa. * 1.616 Forma Apostolica haec est, Dominatio interdicitur, indicitur Ministratio. It is no Principality that the Apostles have, but it is a Ministery; a Ministery in chief, the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey. They must govern, not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy, but in a Spiritual, not for honour to the Rulers, so much as for benefit and service to the subject. So Saint Austin. Nomen est operis,* 1.617 non honoris, ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book, Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare. Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant, sed officio consulen∣di, nec principandi superbiâ, sed providendi misericordiâ. And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions, where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man; and the Empire of the world by Beasts. The first is the Regiment of a Father, the second of a King. The first spiritual, the other secular. And of the fatherly au∣thority it is that the Prophet sayes, Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children, whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands. This (say the Fathers) is spoken of the Apo∣stles and their Successors the Bishops, who may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Princes or Ru∣lers of Churches, not Princes of Kingdoms, by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate. But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty 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 sin if it continues, and no sin if it lasts but for a week? Or is it lawful to sin, and domineer, and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together? * But sup∣pose it were, what will they say that are perpetual Dictators? Calvin was perpe∣tual President, and Beza, till Danaeus came to Geneva, even for many years

together? * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery, which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial, and that over all Princes, and Ministers, and people, and that for ever? For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so, and not in the Presbytery? If it be lawful here, then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles, for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer, and (as they call it now adayes) to Lord it over their Brethren, when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern? But if the Apostles may govern, then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee, and then also, their suc∣cessors the Bishops may do the same.

If I had any further need of answer or escape, it were easie to pretend, that this be∣ing a particular directory to the Apostles, was to expire with their persons. So S. Cy∣prian intimates. Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti, & honoris, & dignitatis;* 1.618 and in∣deed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors, but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority. For inter se they might be equal, 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 advanc'd, but persecuted. But I had rather insist on the first answer; in which I desire it be remembred, that I said, seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles, as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle. For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principali∣ties as other men. Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes, must not seek for it; But some secular Princes may be Bishops, as in Germany and in other places to this day they are. For it is as unlawful for a Bishop to have any Land, as to have a Country, and a single Acre is no more due to the Order than a Province; but both these may be conjunct in the same person, though still by vertue of Christ's precept the fun∣ctions and capacities must be distinguished; according to the saying of Synesius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood, is to joyn things incompossible and inconsistent; Inconsistent (I say) not in person, but absolutely discrepant in fun∣ction.

3. Consider we, that Saint Peter, when he speaks of the dutious subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham, he propounds her as an example to all married wo∣men, in these words, [She obeyed Abraham, and called him Lord] why was this spoken to Christian women, but that they should do so too? And is it imaginable that such an honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her Husband, a Mechanick, a hard-handed Artisan, he would forbid to those eminent Pillars of his Church, those Lights of Christendom, whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the Regiment of the Catholick Church. Credat Apella.

4. Pastor, and Father, are as honourable titles as any. They are honourable in Scripture. Honour thy Father, &c. Thy Father in all sences. They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops, and that not only in secular addresses, but even in holy Scripture, as is known. * 1.619 Add to this; 〈 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 certain, that, Duke, and Captain, Rulers, and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greek, and the least of these is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual Regiment, and us'd words of secular honour to express it, as in the instances above, although Christ did interdict a secular principality, yet he forbad not a secular title; He us'd many himself.

5. The voice of the Spouse, the holy Church hath alwayes expressed their ho∣nourable estimate in reverential Compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bi∣shops, and have taught us so to do. * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum, Prin∣ces of the Churches. I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction. Indeed the third Councel of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sa∣cerdotum, or summus sacerdos, or aliquid hujusmodi, but only primae sedis Episcopus. I know not what their meaning was, unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate, that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his per∣son as in the See, for he might be called Bishop of the prime See. But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage, I am sure it was a guise of Christendom, not to speak of Bishops sine praefatione honoris, but with honourable mention. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To our most blessed Lord. So the Letters were superscribed to Julius Bishop of Rome

from some of his Brethren; in Sozomen. Let no man speak Untruths of me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.620 Nor of my Lords the Bishops, said Saint Gregory Nazianzen. The Synodical book of the Councel of Constantinople is inscribed Dominis Reverendissimis, ac piissimis Fratribus ac Collegis, Damaso, Ambrosio, &c. To our most Reverend Lords, and holy Brethren, &c. And the Councel of Illyricum sending their Synodal letters to the Bishops of Asia,* 1.621 by Bishop Elpidius, Haec pluribus (say they) persequi non est visum, quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus, Dominum, & Collegam nostrum Elpidium, qui cognos∣ceret, esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à Domino, & Collegâ nostro Eustathio. Our Lord and Brother Elpidius. Our Lord and Brother Eustathius. * The Oration in the Councel of Epaunum begins thus. Quod praecipientibus tantis Dominis meis ministerium profe∣rendi sermonis assumo, &c. The Prolocutor took that office on him at the command of so many Great Lords the Bishops. * When the Church of Spain became Catholick, and abjured the Arian heresie, King Recaredus in the third Councel of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops, Non incognitum reor esse vobis, Reverendissimi, Sacerdotes, &c. Non credimus vestram latere Sanctitatem, &c. Vestra Cognovit Beatitudo, &c. Vene∣randi Patres, &c. And these often, Your Holiness, your Blessedness, Most Reverend, Venerable Fathers: Those were the Addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod. Thus it was when Spain grew Catholick, but not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian Records. They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bi∣shops.* 1.622 But the instances of this kind are innumerable. Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity than to speak of Bishops with the titles of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Domine verè Sancte, & suscipiende Papa. So Saint Hierom a Presbyter to Saint Austin a Bishop. Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyteria major est, saith Saint Austin. Episcopacy is greater than the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the Titles of Honour which the custom of the Church hath introduced. * 1.623 But I shall sum up these particulars in a total, which is thus expressed by Saint Chrysostom. Haeretici à Diabolo Honorum vocabula Episcopis non dare didicerunt. Hereticks have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops. The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so. * For my own par∣ticular, I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous, or pompous title, that were not the duty of their people in it, they would as easily reject them, as it is our duty piously to use them. But if they still desire appellatives of ho∣nour, 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,* 1.624 and S. Cypri∣an, observing how curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Jews, even then when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell; he did it to teach us a duty. Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime & plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit.* 1.625 It is the argument he uses to pro∣cure a full honour to the Bishop.

* To these I add; If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity, then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne, and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthroni∣zation. Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi, &c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo. Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop. Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae & praeparatae,* 1.626 ut Thronus speculationem & potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent, (saith Vrban.) And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.627 I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne.

** The sum of all is this. Bishops if they must be at all, most certainly must be beloved, it is our duties, and their work deserves it. Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes, and it is true eternally, Formosi pedes Evangelizantium, the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous, and then much more of the chief.* 1.628 Ideo ista praetulimus (charissimi) ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestro∣rum, in eisque Deum veneremini & eos ut animas vestras diligatis, ut quibus illi non com∣municant, non communicetis, &c. Now, love to our Superiours is ever honourable, for it is more than amicitia, that's amongst Peers, but love to our Betters, is Reve∣rence, Obedience, and high Estimate. And if we have the one, the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence.* 1.629 I end this with the saying of Saint Ignati∣us, Et vos dec••t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi, sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem

illi impertiri Reverentiam. It is the will of God the Father, that we should give all Re∣verence, Honour, or veneration to our Bishops.

SECT. XLIX. And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest.

WELL! However things are now, it was otherwise in the old Religion; for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority. But then also they went further. For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls, they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal 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 affairs, in whose determination, a Divine wisdom, and interests of Conscience, and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients.

But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other, in pursuance of their several interests. The Common∣wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes, and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue, up∣on such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities, Autho∣rity and Religion: But on the other side, the Church did as much decline them as she could, and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people, and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance. But this we shall see by consideration of parti∣culars.

1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular im∣ployment. Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop. And it is hard, if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick, which must be indulged to a pri∣vate, personal necessity. But we have not Saint Paul's example only, but his rule too, according to Primitive exposition.* 1.630 [Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust, and not before the Saints? If then ye have judgment of things per∣taining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church.] Who are they? The Clergy, I am sure, now adayes. But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously. Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges.* 1.631 For by [least esteemed] he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity, they would most certain∣ly have done very strange justice, especially in such causes which they understand not. No, but set them to judge who by their office are Servants, and Ministers of all, and those are the Clergy, who (as Saint Paul's expression is) Preach not themselves, but Jesus to be the Lord, and themselves your servants for Jesus sake. Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam. Yea, but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling. [Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren?] Why Brethren, if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges, they are Fathers? The objection is not worth the noting, but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it. Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit, qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus.* 1.632 Saint Paul us'd the word [Brethren] for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church, intimating that the Bishop was to be the man, though till then, in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed.

2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of in∣gagements in Rebus Saeculi. So the sixth Canon of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A Bishop,* 1.633 and a Priest, and a Deacon, must not assume, or take on himself worldly cares.* 1.634 If he does, let him be depos'd. Here the Prohibition is general, No worldly cares. Not domestick. But how if they come on him by Divine imposition, or acci∣dent? That's nothing, if he does not assume them; that is, by his voluntary

act acquire his own trouble. So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedi∣ence, indeed it is trouble to him, but no sin. But if he seeks it for it self it is ambi∣tion. In this sence 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 seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutor∣ship.

3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends, not precisely the imployment it self, but the illness of the intention, and this indeed she expresly for∣bids in her Canons. * 1.635 Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti Propter Lucra Turpia conductores alienarum possessionum fiant, & saecularia ne∣gotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant, Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes, Saecularium verò discurrentes domos & Propter Avaritiam patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes. Clergy-men were farmers of lands, and did take upon them secular imployment for covetous designs, and with neglect of the Church. These are the things the Coun∣cel complain'd of, and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood. Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium, nullum dein∣ceps, non Episcopum, non Clericum, vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere, aut nego∣tiis secularibus se immiscere, No Bishop, no Clergy-man, no Monk must farm grounds, nor ingage himself in secular business. What in none? No, none. Praeter pupillorum, si forte leges imponant inexcusabilem curam, aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum re∣rum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat, aut Orphanorum, & viduarum carum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt, ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio, & propter timorem Domini causa deposcat. This Canon will do right to the Que∣stion.

All secular affairs and bargains, either for covetousness, or with considerable di∣sturbance of Church-Offices, are to be avoided. For a Clergy man must not be co∣vetous, much less for covetise must he neglect his cure. To this purpose is that of the second Councel of Arles,* 1.636 Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat. But not here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute, nor decla∣ratory of an inconsistence and incapacity; for, for all this, the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curiâ. He may undertake the supra-vision of Widows and Orphans. And although he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a Guardi∣an of Pupils, yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon, for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles, but here it is permitted only with si fortè le∣ges imponant, if the Law or Authority commands him, then he may undertake it. That is, if either the Emperor commands him, or if the Bishop permits him, then it is lawful. But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles. And therefore Saint Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Fau∣stinus, one of the Priests of Carthage, for undertaking the executorship of the Te∣stament of Geminius Victor:* 1.637 he had no leave of his Bishop so to do, and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his Office, did in Saint Cyprian's Consistory deserve a censure. 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon, any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or Steward of a Church, and dispence her Reve∣nue if the Bishop command him. 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches aid. * From hence it is evident, that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty; for some secular imployments are permitted him, All causes of piety, of charity, all occurrences concerning the Revenues of the Church, and nothing for covet∣ousness, but any thing in obedience, any thing I mean of the forenamed instances. Nay, the affairs of Church Revenues,* 1.638 and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolical, and then considering how many pos∣sessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet, and afterwards in the Bishops hands, we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Ignatius to Saint Polycarpe of Smyr∣na. Let not the Widows be neglected; after God, do thou take care of them. * 1.639 Qui lo∣cupletes sunt, & volunt, pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit; & quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur, atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis, & viduis, iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causà egent: tum iis qui vincti sunt, & peregrè advenientibus hospitibus: & ut uno verbo dicam, omnium indigentium Curator est. All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop, and thence he dispenses for the relief of the Widows and Orphans, thence he provides for travellers, and in one word,

he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people. So it was in Justin Martyr's time, and all this, a man would think, requir'd a considerable portion of his time, besides his stu∣dies and prayer and preaching.

This was also done even in the Apostles times, for first they had the provision of all the goods, and persons of the coenobium, of the Church at Jerusalem. This they themselves administred till a complaint arose, which might have prov'd a scandal; then they chose seven men, men full of the Holy Ghost, men that were Priests, for they were of the seventy Disciples, saith Epiphanius, and such men as Preached, and Baptized, so Saint Stephen, and Saint Philip, therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men, and yet they left their preaching for a time, at least abated of the height of the imployment, for therefore the Apostles appointed them, that themselves might not leave the Word of God and serve Tables; plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the Word, in some sence or degree, and yet they chose Presbyters, and no harm neither, and for a while them∣selves had the imployment. I say there was no harm done by this temporary Office to their Priestly function and imployment. For to me it is considerable. If the cal∣ling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man, then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay. But if it does take up the whole man, then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop, which is a dignity of a far greater burden, and requires more than a Man's all, if all was requir'd to the fun∣ction of a Presbyter. But I proceed.

4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks, do prohibit it only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis; and therefore when the Offices are sup∣plyed by any of the Order, it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Commonwealth. And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not desti∣tute, not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate. Thus the Councel of Arles decreed, Vt Presbyteri sicut hactenus factum est,* 1.640 indiscretè per diversa non mit∣tantur loca—ne fortè propter eorum absentiam, & animarum pericula, & Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt, negligantur officia. So that here we see, 1. That it had been usual to send Priests on Embassies [sicut hactenus factum est.] 2. The Canon for∣bids the indiscreet or promiscuous doing of it; not that men of great ability and choice be not imployed, but that there be discretion or discerning in the choice of the men, viz. that such men be chosen whose particular worth did by advancing the legation make compensation for absence from their Churches; and then I am sure there was no indiscretion in the Embassy, quoad hoc at least; for the ordinary Offices of the Church might be dispensed by men of even abilities, but the extraordinary affairs of both states require men of an heightned apprehension. 3. The Canon only took care that the cure of the souls of a Parish be not relinquished, for so is the title of the Canon, Ne Presbyteri causâ legationis per diversa mittantur loca, curâ animarum re∣lictâ. But then if the cure be supplied by delegation, the fears of the Canon are prevented.

* In pursuance of this consideration the Church forbad Clergy-men to receive honour, or secular preferment; and so it is expressed where the prohibition is made. It is in the Councel of Chalcedon. Qui semel in clero deputati sunt,* 1.641 aut Monachorum vitam expetiverunt, statuimus neque ad militiam, neque ad dignitatem aliquam venire mun∣danam. That's the inhibition; But the Canon subjoyns a temper; Aut hoc tentantes & non agentes poenitentiam, quo minùs redeant ad hoc quod propter deum primitùs elegerunt, anathematizari, they must not turn Souldiers, or enter upon any worldly dignity to make them leave their function, which for the honour of God they have first chosen: for then, it seems, he that took on him military honours, or secular prefectures, or consular dignity, could not officiate in holy Orders, but must renounce them to assume the other: It was in obstruction of this abuse that the Canon directed its prohibition, viz. in this sence clearly, that a Clerk must not so take on him secular Offices, as to make him redire in saeculum, having put his hand to the plow, to look back, to change his profession, or to relinquish the Church, and make her become a Widow. The case of S. Matthew and S. Peter distinguish and clear this business. Ecce reliquimus omnia, was the profession of their Clerical office. S. Matthew could not return to his trade of Publican at all, for that would have taken him from his Apostolate. But S. Peter might and did return to his nets, for all his reliqui omnia. Plainly telling us that a secular cal∣ling, a continued fix'd attendance on a business of the world, is an impediment to the Clerical office and ministration, but not a temporary imployment or secession.

5. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid the cares of houshold, as the cares of publick imployment to Bishops. So the fourth Councel of Carthage decrees. Vt Episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam ad se revocet,* 1.642 sed lectioni, & orationi, & ver∣bi Dei praedicationi tantummodò vacet. Now if this Canon be confronted with that saying of Saint Paul, [He that provides not for them of his own houshold is worse than an Infidel] it will easily inform us of the Churches intention. For they must provide, saith Saint Paul, but yet so provide as not to hinder their imployment, or else they transgress the Canon of the Councel; but this caveat may be as well entred, and ob∣served in things Political as Oeconomical.

Thus far we have seen what the Church hath done in pursuance of her own interest, and that was that she might with sanctity, and without distraction, tend her Grand im∣ployment; but yet many cases did occurr in which she did canonically permit an alie∣nation of imployment, and revocation of some persons from an assiduity of Ecclesiasti∣cal attendance, as in the case of the seven set over the Widows, and of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, and all the Apostles and the Canon of Chalcedon.

Now let us see how the Commonwealth also pursued her interest, and because she found Bishops men of Religion and great trust, and confident abilities, there was no reason that the Commonwealth should be disserv'd in the promotion of able men to a Bishops throne. * Who would have made recompence to the Emperour for depriving him of Ambrose his Prefect, if Episcopal promotion had made him incapable of ser∣ving his Prince in any great Negotiation? It was a remarkable passage in Ignatius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.643 As our Lord is to be observ'd, so also must we observe the Bishop, because he assists and serves the Lord. And wisemen, and of great understanding must serve Kings, for he must not be served with men of small parts. Here either Ignatius commends Bishops to the service of Kings, or else propounds them as the fittest men in the world to do them ser∣vice. For if only 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 approxi∣mation. 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 di••course.

For consider, Christianity might be suspected for a design; and if the Church should chuse the best and most pregnant Understandings for her imployment, and then these men become incapable of aiding the Republick, the promotion of these men would be an injury to those Princes whose affairs would need support. * The interest of the Subjects also is considerable. For we find by experience, that no Authority is so full of regiment, and will so finely force obedience, as that which is seated in the Conscience; And therefore Numa Pompilius made his Laws and imposed them with a face of religious solemnity. For the people are stronger than any one Governour, and were they not awed by Religion, would quickly miscere Sacra prophanis, jumble Heaven and Earth into a miscellany, and therefore not only in the Sanction of Laws, but in the execution of them, the Antistites Religionis are the most competent instru∣ments; and this was not only in all Religions that ever were, and in ours ever till now, but even now we should quickly find it, were but our Bishops in that veneration and esteem that by the Law of God they ought, and that actually they were in the Calen∣ture of primitive devotion, and that the Doctors of Religion were ever even amongst the most barbarous and untaught Pagans.

Upon the confidence of these advantages, both the Emperours themselves, when they first became Christian, allowed appeals from secular Tribunals to the * 1.644 Bishops Consistory, even in causes of secular interest, and the people would chuse to have their difficulties there ended whence they expected the issues of Justice and Religion, * I say this was done as soon as ever the Emperours were Christian. Before this time, Bishops, and Priests (to be sure) could not be imployed in state affairs, they were odious for their Christianity; and then no wonder if the Church forbad secular im∣ployment in meaner offices, the attendance on which could by no means make recom∣pence for the least avocation of them from their Church-imployment. So that it was not only the avocation but the sordidness of the imployment that was prohibited the Clergy in the Constitutions of holy Church. But as soon as ever their imployment might be such as to make compensation for a temporary secession, neither Church nor State did then prohibit it; And that was as soon as ever the Princes were Christian, for then immediately the Bishops were imployed in honorary negotiations. It was evident in the case of Saint 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 cognizance. For when he was chosen Bishop, the Emperour, who was present at the election, cried out, Gratias tibi ago Domine —quoniam huic viro ego quidem commisi corpora; tu autem animas,* 1.645 & meam electionem ostendisti tuae justi∣tiae convenire. So that he was Bishop and Governour of Millaine at the same time; And therefore by reason of both these Offices, Saint Austin was forced to attend a good while before he could find him at leisure. Non enim quaerere ab eo poteram quod vole∣bat sicut volebam, secludentibus me ab ejus aure,* 1.646 atque ore catervis negotiosorum homi∣num, quorum infirmitatibus serviebat. And it was his own condition too, when he came to sit in the chair of Hippo; Non permittor ad quod volo vacare ante meridiem; post meridiem occupationibus hominum teneor. And again,* 1.647 Et homines quidam causas suas saeculares apud nos finire cupientes, quando eis necessarii suerimus, sic nos Sanctos, & Dei servos appellant, ut negotia terrae suae peragant. Aliquando & agamus negotium salutis nostrae & salutis ipsorum, non de auro, non de argento, non de fundis, & peco∣ribus, pro quibus rebus quotidiè submisso capite salutamur ut dissensiones hominum termi∣nemus. It was almost the business of every day to him, to judge causes concerning Gold, and Silver, Cattel, and Glebe, and all appurtenances of this life. This S. Austin would not have done if it had not been lawful, so we are to suppose in charity; but yet this we are sure of, Saint Austin thought it not only lawful, but a part of his duty, [quibus nos molestiis idem affixit Apostolus, and that by the authority, not of himself,* 1.648 but of him that spake within him, even the Holy Ghost:] so he.

Thus also it was usual for Princes in the Primitive Church to send Bishops their Embassadours. Constans the Emperour sent two Bishops chosen out of the Councel of Sardis together with Salianus the Great Master of his Army to Constantius. * 1.649 Saint Chrysostom was sent Embassadour to Gainas. Maruthus the Bishop of Mesopo∣tamia was sent Embassadour from the Emperour to Isdigerdes the King of Persia. Saint Ambrose from Valentinian the younger to the Tyrant Maximus. * Dorotheus was a Bishop and a Chamberlain to the Emperour. Many more examples there are of the concurrence of the Episcopal office, and a secular dignity or imployment. Now then consider. * The Church did not, might not challenge any secular ho∣nour, or imployment by vertue of her Ecclesiastical dignity precisely. 2. The Church might not be ambitious, or indagative of such imployment. 3. The Chur∣ches interest abstractly considered was not promoted by such imployment, but where there was no greater way of compensation, was interrupted and depressed. 4. The Church (though in some cases she was allowed to make secession, yet) might not relinquish her own charge to intervene in anothers aid. 5. The Church did by no means suffer her Clerks to undertake any low secular imployment, much more did she forbid all sordid ends, and covetous designs. 6. The Bishop or his Clerks might ever do any action of piety, though of secular burden. Clerks were never forbid∣den to read Grammar or Philosophy to youth, to be Masters of Schools, of Hospi∣tals, they might reconcile their Neighbours that were fallen out, about a personal trespass, or real action, and yet since now adayes a Clergy-mans imploment and ca∣pacity is bounded within his Pulpit, or Reading-desk, or his Study of Divinity at most, these that I have reckoned are as verily secular as any thing, and yet no Law of Christendom ever prohibited any of these, or any of the like nature to the Clergy, nor any thing that is ingenuous, that is fit for a Scholar, that requires either fineness of parts, or great learning, or over-ruling authority, or exemplary piety. 7. Clergy-men might do any thing that was imposed on them by their Superiours. 8. The Bi∣shops and Priests were men of great ability and surest confidence for determinations of Justice, in which, Religion was ever the strongest binder. And therefore the Princes and People sometimes forced the Bishops from their own interest to serve the Commonwealth, and in it they served themselves directly, and by consequence too, the Church had not only a sustentation from the secular Arm, but an addition of ho∣nour and secular advantages, and all this warranted by precedent of Scripture, and the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly of men whom all succeeding Ages have put into the Calender 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 publick trust. It is no addition to the calling of Bishops. It serves the King, it assists the Republick, 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, whose daily Offices may be plentifully supplied by Vicars, and for the temporary avocation of some few, abundant recompence is made to the

Church (which is not at all injured) by becoming an occasion of indearing the Church to those whose aid she is.

* 1.650 There is an admirable Epistle written by Petrus Blesensis in the name of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to Pope Alexander the third in the defence of the Bishop of Ely, Winchester and Norwich that attended the Court upon service of the King. Non est novum (saith he) quòd Regum Consiliis intersint Episcopi. Sicum enim honestate, & sapientiâ caeteros antecedunt, sic expeditiores, & efficaciores in reip. administratio∣ne censentur. Quia sicut Scriptum est [minùs salubriter disponitur regnum, quod non regitur consilio sapientum] In quo notatur eos consiliis Regum debere assistere, qui sciant & velint, & possint patientibus compati, paci terrae, ac populi saluti prospicere, erudire ad justitiam Reges, imminentibus occursare periculis, vitaeque maturioris exemplis in∣formare subditos & quâdam authoritate potestativâ praesumptionem malignantium cohi∣bere. It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes (saith he) their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaims them fit Instruments to promote the publick tranquillity of the Commonwealth. They know how to comply with oppressed people, to advance designs of peace and publick security; It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness, by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court, and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom, to mix influences of Religion with designs of State, to make them have as much of the Dove as of the Serpent, and by the advantage of their Religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God or of Religion is remain∣ing. * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel, Isaiah, Eli∣sha, Jojada, Zacharias, who were Priests and Prophets respectively, and yet imploy∣ed in Princes Courts, and Councels of Kings, and adds this; Vnum noveritis, quia nisi familiares, & Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores, & immaniter, ac intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis. That's most true. If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary im∣ployments, the plowers would plow upon the Churches back and make long furrows. * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing, but I shall content my self with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to Policy and Religion by the imployment of Bishops in Princes Courts. Istis mediantibis mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor, admittitur clamor pauperum, Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur, relevatur pauperum indigentia, firmatur in clero libertas, pax in populis, in monasteriis quies, ju∣stitia liberè exercetur, superbia opprimitur, augetur Laicorum devotio, religio fovetur, di∣riguntur judicia, &c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councils, then the rigour of the Laws is abated, equity introduced, the cry of the poor is heard, their ne∣cessities are made known, the liberties of the Church are conserved, the peace of Kingdoms laboured for, pride is depressed, Religion increaseth, the devotion of the Laity multiplies, and Tribunals are made just, and incorrupt, and merciful. Thus far Petrus Blesensis. * These are the effects, which though perhaps they do not alwayes fall out, yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked for from the Clergy, their principles and calling promises all this. Et quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est, ubi Dominus legis timetur, meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam. Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt;* 1.651 (saith Saint Ambrose,) and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed. But if personal defaillance be thought reasona∣ble to disimploy the whole calling, then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince.

And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of Saint Paul, [No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life.* 1.652] For although this be spoken of all Christian people, and concerns the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy, yet nor one nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinderance to their own precise duty of Christianity. And such things must be par'd away from the Fringes of the Laity, as well as the long Robe of the Clergy. But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop, I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function, so far would it be from being hindered by the collateral intervening of a Lay-judicature. I need not instance in any particulars; for if the judging matters and questions of Religion be not left alone to them, they may well be put into a temporal imployment, to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing.

I have now done with this; only intreating this to be considered. Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis? In all the sences of Common-law and external compul∣sory he is. But if so, then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Judges, as

Lay-Delegates? For (to be sure) if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of med∣ling with secular affairs, there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affairs. For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the world, then the Laity are un∣der the affairs of the Church; or else, if the Clergy be incapable of Lay-business because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church, does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affairs? For the Church dif∣fers no more from the Commonwealth than the Commonwealth differs from the Church. And now after all this, suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a forreign Prince, to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification, if the Bi∣shop refuse, did he do the duty of a Subject? If yea, I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop ows to his Prince, when he shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying and doing of his office, to which he is obliged, whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no, then the Bishop was tyed to go, and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment, for no man can be bound to do a sin.

SECT. L. And therefore were inforced to delegate the power and put others in substitution.

BUT then did not this imployment, when the occasions were great and extraor∣dinary, 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 Ca∣nons. They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of, that attended the Court, and never visited their Churches, or took care either of the cure of souls, or of the Church possessions. What then must be done? The Bi∣shops in such cases may give delegation of their power and offices to others, though now adayes they are complain'd of for their care. I say, for their care; For if they may intervene in secular affairs, they may sometimes be absent, and then they must delegate their power, or leave the Church without a Curate. *** But for this matter the account need not be long. For since I have proved that the whole Dio∣cess is in cura Episcopali, and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty, and yet that instant necessity and the publick act of Christendom hath ratified it, that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are Parishes in his Diocess, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge, is no less than the act of all Christendom. For it is evident at first, Presbyters had no distinct cure at all, but were in common assistant to the Bishop, and were his Emissa∣ries for the gaining souls in City 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 Con∣science. For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria (saith Saint Denis,) he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only,* 1.653 but by others also, for all the inferiour Orders do so operate, as by them he does his proper offices.

* But besides this grand act of the Bishops first, and then of all Christendom in consent, we have fair precedent in Saint Paul; for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person. It was a plain dele∣gation; for he commanded them to do it, and gave them his own spirit, that is, his own authority; and indeed without it, I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church, that is, to be buffetted, for that was a miraculous appendix of power Aposto∣lick.

* When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus, he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar. [Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly, for Demas hath forsaken me, &c.* 1.654 And Tychi∣cus have I sent to Ephesus] Here was an express delegation of the power of juris∣diction

to Tychicus, who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy. Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul, although he was then Bishop of Philippi, and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution,* 1.655 or the Church was relinquish∣ed, for he was most certainly non-resident.

* Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom.* 1.656 Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est, donec De∣us designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est. Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop. Till then. Therefore it was but a delegate power, it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour. * 1.657 To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council. Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Epi∣scopi ingredi, & sedere in tribunalibus, nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit. Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop, unless the Bi∣shop be sick, or absent. So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church, that may be committed to others in his absence. And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters.* 1.658 Fretus ergo dilectione & religione vostrâ— his literis hortor, & mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adimini∣stratio religiosa deposcit. I intreat and command you, that you do my office in the admi∣nistration of the affairs of the Church; and another time he put Herculanus and Caldo∣nius,* 1.659 two of his Suffragans, together with Rogatianus and Numidicus, two Priests, in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four 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. Videbatur autem & Melitius praemenire, &c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu, velut adjuvandi ejus gra∣tiâ sub ipso existens, & sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans. He did Church offices under and for Hierocles: And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdi∣ction by way of delegation.

* Hitherto also may be referr'd, that when the goods of all the Church, which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation, were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function, yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward, provided he were a Clergy-man; and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church.* 1.660 Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi con∣stituat. But the reason extends the Canon further. Indecorum est enim laicum Vi∣carium esse Episcopi, & Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare. Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows, only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars. In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio, quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur, &c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities. Then this would be consi∣dered. For the Canon pretends Scripture, Precepts of Fathers, and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction.

SECT. LI. But they were ever Clergy-men, for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church.

FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars, yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least. Melitius was a Biship, and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria; so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian. But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely. Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people, I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity, by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas, when his Clerks grew covetous, he cur'd their itch of Gold, by trusting men of another profession, so to shame them into justice and contempt of money. * 1.661 Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc▪ Ecclesiasticam rem aut

Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit —non solùm à Christo de rebus Paupe∣rum judicatur reus, sed etiam & Concilio manebit obnoxius.* 1.662 If any Bishop shall here∣after concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration, he shall be responsive to Christ, and in danger of the Council. But the Thing was of more ancient constitution. For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement,* 1.663 which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it, it is decreed, Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se, apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quic∣quid illud est dirimatur. If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial con∣testation, let it be ended before the Priests. For so Saint Clement expounds [Presbyteros] in the same Epistle, reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy. * 1.664 To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates, saying that [Priests from the begin∣ning were appointed Judges of causes.] He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops, and they were Judges ab initio, from the beginning (saith S. Hie∣rom.) So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge the Bishops authority, but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories. Presbyter and Epi∣scopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom, but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else.

* But for the main Question,* 1.665 Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Em∣perour with confidence and humility, In causa fidei, vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec Munere impar sit, nec jure dissimilis. The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare, That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes; and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale, The Bishops judicature. Si tractandum est, tractare in Ecclesiâ didici, quod Majores fecerunt mei. Si conferendum de fide, Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio, sicut factum est sub Con∣stantino Aug. memoriae Principe. So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church, and that by Bishops, and that sub Imperatore, by permission and authority of the Prince. For so it was in Nice under Constantine. Thus far Saint Ambrose.

* Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba,* 1.666 President in the Nicene Council, said, it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ec∣clesiasticis judiciis, in Church-causes; And Leontius calls Church-affairs, Res alienas à Laicis, things of another Court, of a distinct cognisance from the Laity. * 1.667 To these add the Council of Venice, for it is very considerable in this Question.* 1.668 Clerico nisi ex per∣missu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat. Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum, aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio, aliorum Episcoporum audientiam, non saeculari∣um potestatum debebit ambire. Aliter à communione habeatur alienus. Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants, but the Bi∣shop, unless the Bishop be appealed from, then other Bishops must hear the cause, but no Lay-Judges by any means.

* These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Im∣perial Edict, for so Justinian commanded,* 1.669 that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest, Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae fi∣nem imponat. The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters.* 1.670 I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church. Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ, ne saecularibus viris, atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur. Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons. But of this I have twice spo∣ken already. Sect. 36. and Sect. 41.

The thing is so evident, that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church. It was against their faith, it was against their practice; and those few pigmy objections, out of * 1.671 Tertullian, S. Am∣brose, and S. Austin using the word Seniores, or Elders, sometimes for Priests, as being the Latine for the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes for a secular Magistrate, or Alderman, (for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius) are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four; for to pretend such slight, aery imaginations against the constant, known, open, Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church, and History of all ages, is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush. They are not worth further considering.

* But this is; That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Ace∣phali do wholly mistake their own advantages. For whatsoever they object

out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations, or else clearly abused in the use of them. For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy, but then they misal∣ledge Antiquity, for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Que∣stion were themselves Bishops for the most part, and he that was not would fain have been, it is known so of Tertullian, and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges 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 do no ser∣vice in the present Question.

I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood, and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either Divine or Humane, but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity, so they are neither nam'd in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their de∣portment in their imaginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the Lake of Gehenna, and so to the place of the nearest de∣nomination. The Objection is from Saint Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour,* 1.672 especially they that la∣bour in the word and doctrine, especially they—therefore all Elders do not so. Here are two sorts of Elders, Preaching Ministers, and Elders not Preachers. Therefore Lay-Elders, and yet all are 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 [prae∣dicate] and why then might not another say, Christ sent me not to Preach, but to Baptize, that is, in S. Paul's sence, not so much to do one, as to do the other, and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism, and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching, then to be sure, some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer, and so not the Preacher, for if he might be both ordinarily, why was not Saint Paul both? For though their power was common to all of the same Order, yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts, and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure, but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices, and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest, so also was the Office, and therefore the sence of the words is this, That all Presbyters must be honoured, but especially they that Pro∣phesie, doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery. So no Lay-Elders yet. Add to this, that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach. Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born, and yet a Godly Bishop, and Saint Austin his Presbyter preached for him. The same case might occur in the Apostles times. For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Sy∣naxes, especially in all great Imperial Cities, and Metropolitans, as Rome, Antioch, Je∣rusalem, Caesarea, and the like. Now all could not speak with tongues, neither could all Prophesie, they were particular gifts given severally to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices. Some prophesied, some interpreted; and therefore it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick, whosoever in the ages Apo∣stolical was not a Preacher.

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

3. The word Presbyter is never used in the New-Testament for a Lay-man, if a Church-officer be intended. If it be said, it is used so here, that is the Question, and must not be brought to prove it self.

4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical Reve∣nue, for so Saint 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 corn. But now, the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them, they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs, and so perish, than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses. But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him, being he is of their own begetting.

5. This place speaks not of divers persons, but divers parts of the Pastoral office, 〈 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.

Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ. All good Councellors of State are worthy of double honour, especially them that disregarding their own private, aim at the publick good. This implies not two sorts of Counsellors, but two parts of a Counsellors worth and quality. Judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour, especially if they right the cause of Orphans and Widows, and yet there are no righteous Judges that refuse to do both.

6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach, at least not frequently. The seven that were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set over the Widows were Presbyters, but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the Word to attend that imploy∣ment, as I shewed * 1.673 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 Alexan∣dria, the Bishop only did it. And then the allegation is easily understood. For labouring in the word does not signifie, 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 ho∣nour is to be given him. So that here is no Lay-Elders; for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of, are to be honoured, but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel. For though all preach, (suppose that) yet all do not 〈 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 travel, usque ad lassitudinem, (so Budaeus renders it.) And so it is likely S. Paul here means. Honour the good Presbyters, but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel. And the word is often so used in Scripture. S. Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I have travelled in the word more than they all. Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles, for most certainly they made it their business as well as he. But he travelled further and more than they all for the spread∣ing it. And thus it is said of the good Women that travelled with the Apostles, for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices,* 1.674 [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 Tryphosa. And since those Women were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that travelled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists, the men also travelled too, and preached, and there∣fore were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, travellers in the word. [We ought therefore to re∣ceive such] (saith S. John) intimating a particular reception of them,* 1.675 as being to∣wards us of a peculiar merit. So that the sence 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 answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders, from the common draught of the new discipline. For they have some that Preach only, and some that Rule and Preach too, and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder, viz. their Pastors and Doctors.

8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy, that Presby∣ter and Episcopus is all one, and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy, why may not Presbyteri in this place signifie [Bishops?] And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters, or else this place is to none of their purposes.

9. If both these Offices of Ruling and Preaching may be conjunct in one person, then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several imployments, since one man may do 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 Officer being united in one person, the inference of the dististinct Officer, the Lay-Elder, is impertinent. For the meaning of Saint Paul would be nothing but this. All Church-Rulers must be honoured, especially for their preach∣ing. For if the Offices may be united in one person (as it is evident they may) then this may be comprehended within the other, and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency. And indeed so it is, according to the Exposition of Saint Chrysostom, 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 general charge, and preaching is the particular. For the work in general they are to receive double honour, but this of preaching, as then preaching was, had a particular excellency, and a plastick power to form men into Christianity, especially it being then attested with miracles.

But the new Office of a Lay-Elder, I confess, I cannot comprehend in any reasona∣ble proportion, his person, his quality, his office, his authority, his subordination, his commission hath made so many divisions and new emergent Questions: and they, none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity, that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholick Church, and run in pursuit of this me∣teor, I might quickly be amuzed; but should find nothing certain, but a certainty of being misguided. Therefore if not for conscience sake, yet for prudence, bonum est esse hîc, it is good to remain in the Fold of Christ, under the guard and supravision of those Shepherds Christ hath appointed, and which his Sheep have alwayes 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 thief come, him they will not hear] Clearly thus. That Christ's Sheep hear not the voice of a stranger, nor will they follow him, and therefore those Shepherds whom the Church hath fol∣lowed in all Ages, are no Strangers, but Shepherds or Pastors of Christ's appointing, or else Christ hath had no Sheep; for if he hath, then Bishops are the Shepherds, for them they have ever followed. I end with that golden Rule of Vincentius Li∣rinensis,* 1.676 Magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab om∣nibus creditum est. Hoc est enim verè, proprieque Catholicum. For certainly the Catho∣lick belief of the Church against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, and (the worst of Hereticks) the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all, and al∣wayes, and every where than is the government of the Church by Bishops. Annun∣ciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt,* 1.677 nunquam licuit, nunquam li∣cet, nunquam licebit. It never was, is, nor ever shall be lawful to teach Christian people any new thing than what they have received from a primitive fountain, and is descended in the stream of Catholick uninterrupted succession.

* I only add, that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catho∣lick Christians to pray for Bishops, and as the case now stands, for Episcopacy it self, for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said Letanies for their King, and for their Bishop.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Maximin•• jussit Marty∣rio coronatur. Saint Platina▪ but that is wholly uncer∣tain.
• * 1.2

  In 1 ad Ti∣tum.
• * 1.3

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.4

  Simler. de rep. Helvet. fol. 148. & 172.
• * 1.5

  De doctr. Christ. lib. 1. c. 18. tract. 118. in Johan. vide etiam tract. 124 & tract. 50. in Joh. de Agon. Christ. cap. 30. de bapt. contr. D••natist. lib. 3. c. 17.
• * 1.6

  De Sacerd. lib. 3.
• * 1.7

  In 16. Matt.
• (a) 1.8

  Lib. de pudi∣cit.
• (b) 1.9

  Epist. 27.
• (c) 1.10

  Lib. quod Christus est Deus.
• (d) 1.11

  Lib. 6. de Trinit.
• (e) 1.12

  Lib. 3. in Apocal. Luke 12.42.
• * 1.13

  Psal. 78.
• * 1.14

  1 Pet. 5.2. Acts 20.
• * 1.15

  In lib. de eo quod deterior potiori insidia∣tur.
• * 1.16

  Vide Hilari∣um in hunc lo∣cum & pp. communiter.
• * 1.17

  For the Apo∣stle and the Bishop are all one in name and person.
• * 1.18

  In cap. 60. Isai. v. 17.
• * 1.19

  Gal. 1.19.
• * 1.20

  1 Cor. 15.
• * 1.21

  Vide Carol. Bovium in con∣stit. Apost. Schol. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo. & in Galat. 1. E∣piphan. hares. 78, 79. Tract. 124. in Johan.
• * 1.22

  Vide pap.
• * 1.23

  Phil. 2.25.
• * 1.24

  In hunc locum uterque & Theod. in 1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.25

  Acts 13.2, 3.
• * 1.26

  Rom. 11.13.
• * 1.27

  Gal. 2.8.
• * 1.28

  In 1 cap. Gal.
• * 1.29

  2 Cor. 8.23.
• * 1.30

  Vers. 22.
• * 1.31

  Vers. 23.
• * 1.32

  Apocal. 2.
• * 1.33

  Doroth. Sy∣nops.
• * 1.34

  Vide Constit. Apost. per Cle∣ment. ubi qui∣dam Johannes in Ephes•• Episc. post Ti∣moth. colloca∣tur.
• * 1.35

  Luke 10.
• * 1.36

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.37

  Eccles. hie∣rarch. c. 5. As of Ordi∣nation.
• * 1.38

  In Trullo can. 16.
• * 1.39

  Haeres. 20.
• * 1.40

  Homil. 14. in Act. 6.
• * 1.41

  In hunc locum
• * 1.42

  Act•• 13.
• * 1.43

  Prophetas du∣plici genere in∣telligamus, & futura dicentes & scripturas revelantes. S. Ambros. in 1 Cor. 12.
• * 1.44

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.45

  S. Cyprian. ad Jubajan.
• * 1.46

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 37.
• * 1.47

  Vide August▪ tract. 6. in 1 Epist. Johan.
• * 1.48

  Acts 2.39.
• * 1.49

  Serm. de Pen∣tecost.
• * 1.50

  Heb. 6.2.
• * 1.51

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.
• * 1.52

  Quaest. 137. ad Orthod.
• * 1.53

  Epist. 73. ad Iubajan.
• * 1.54

  Lib. 6. hist. cap. 33.
• * 1.55

  In 1. tom. Concil.
• (a) 1.56

  Lib. de Bap∣tismo. c. 8.
• (b) 1.57

  Lib. 2. con∣tra lit. Petil. cap. 104. & lib. 15. de Trinit. c. 26. vide eti∣am S. Hieron. contra Lucife∣rianos. S. Am∣bros. lib. 2. c. 2. de sacramentis Epist. 3. Euseb. P. & M. ad Episc. Tusciae & Campon Isi∣dor. Hispal de eccles. offic. lib. 2. c. 26.
• * 1.58

  John 20.21.
• * 1.59

  Lib 7. de bap∣tism. Contra Donatist. c. 43. vide etiam S. Cyprian. de Vnit. Eccles. & S. Cyril. in Joh. lib. 12. c. 55.
• * 1.60

  Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12.
• (a) 1.61

  Lib. 1. hist. c. 12. & l. 2. c. 9.
• (b) 1.62

  Haeres. 20.
• (c) 1.63

  De script. Eccles. in M••t. vide Irenaeum l. 4. c. 63. Ter∣tul. de prae∣script.
• * 1.64

  Vt puta, vi∣duarum colle∣gium, & Dia∣conorum, & coenobium fide∣lium, &c.
• * 1.65

  Revel. 1.20.
• * 1.66

  Hebr. 13.
• * 1.67

  Acts 15.
• * 1.68

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.69

  In 1 Apocal.
• * 1.70

  Ibid.
• * 1.71

  In 1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.72

  Epist. 162. & in Apocal. Lib. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.73

  Lib. 4. c. 10. Lib. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.74

  Epist. ad Po∣lycarp.
• ‖ 1.75

  De praescrip.
• * 1.76

  Vide Aretha. in 1 Apoc.
• * 1.77

  Lib. 4. c. 26.
• * 1.78

  In Lucae c. 1.
• * 1.79

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.80

  Lib. c. 3.
• * 1.81

  Lib. de prae∣script. c. 36.
• * 1.82

  Epist. 42. ad Cornelium.
• * 1.83

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.84

  Lib. 7. c. 43. de baptis. cont. Donatist.
• * 1.85

  Epist. 54.
• * 1.86

  De verbis Dom. serm. 24.
• * 1.87

  In Ephes. 4. In 1 Corinth. 12.28.
• * 1.88

  In vers. 29. ibid.
• * 1.89

  Biblioth. Phot. n. 254.
• * 1.90

  Lib. 4. c. 18. Epist. 1.
• (a) 1.91

  Epist. 1. ad Sempron.
• (b) 1.92

  Homil. 26. in Evang.
• (c) 1.93

  Orat. 2. de imagin.
• (d) 1.94

  Epist. 7.
• (e) 1.95

  Habetur Can. in Novo distinct. 21.
• (f) 1.96

  In synod. Hispal.
• (g) 1.97

  Lib. 3. c. 15 super Lucam.
• * 1.98

  Epist. 27. ad Lapsos.
• * 1.99

  Epist. 1.
• * 1.100

  Lib. 12. thes. cap. 13. Orat. de laud. Basil.
• * 1.101

  Tract. prima die suae ordinat. Biblioth. SS. PP. tom. 5. in Eccles. ord. in∣crepat.
• * 1.102

  Acts 13.
• * 1.103

  Idem fere habet in Epist. ad Magnes: & Smyrnens.
• * 1.104

  Lib. 4. c. 43.
• * 1.105

  Cap. 44.
• * 1.106

  Epist. 13.
• * 1.107

  Epist. 27.
• * 1.108

  Epist. 65. ad Rogatian.
• * 1.109

  Epist. ••6.
• * 1.110

  Epist. ad Mag∣nes.
• * 1.111

  Quaest. Vet. & N. Testam. qu. 97.
• * 1.112

  Euseb. lib. 4. c. 29.
• * 1.113

  Lib. 4. c. 43.
• * 1.114

  In 1 Corint. 12.
• * 1.115

  De dignit. Sa∣c••rd. cap. 2.
• * 1.116

  Homil. 4. Graec. 5. lat. in 1 Tim. cap. In Tit. 1.
• * 1.117

  Acts 20.
• * 1.118

  Hom. 32. in Johan.
• ‖ 1.119

  Can. 6.
• (a) 1.120

  C. 25.
• (b) 1.121

  Octavum Can. 7.
• (c) 1.122

  Epist. 2.
• * 1.123

  Lib. 3. in Lu∣cam c. 15.
• * 1.124

  Lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.125

  Epist. ad Trall.
• * 1.126

  Lib. 2. hist. cap. 1
• * 1.127

  Lib. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.128

  Lib. 2. c. 22.
• * 1.129

  Lib. 7. c. 46. & lib. 8. cap. ult.
• * 1.130

  Epist. 2.
• * 1.131

  Epist. decret. Vni••.
• * 1.132

  Catech. 4.
• * 1.133

  Catech. 16.
• * 1.134

  Lib. 2. cont. lit▪ Petil. c. 51. & lib. 2. cont. Cre∣scon. c. 37.
• * 1.135

  Lib. de Script. Eccles. in Ja∣cobo.
• (a) 1.136

  Hom. 38. in 1 Cor. 15. & 33. hom. in Act. 15.
• (b) 1.137

  Haeres. 66.
• (c) 1.138

  In Galat. 1▪
• (d) 1.139

  Cap. 3.3. Hom. 3. in Act.
• * 1.140

  Haeres. 78.
• * 1.141

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 11
• * 1.142

  Lib. 4. cap. 22.
• * 1.143

  Haeres. 66.
• * 1.144

  2 Tim. 1.6.
• * 1.145

  1 Tim. 1.3,
• * 1.146

  1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.147

  1 Tim. 5.1.
• * 1.148

  1 Tim. 5.7.
• * 1.149

  Haeres. 75.
• * 1.150

  2 Tim. 4.2.
• * 1.151

  1 Tim. 5.20.
• * 1.152

  Verse 22.
• * 1.153

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.154

  Praefat. in 1 Tim.
• (a) 1.155

  Cont. haeres.
• (b) 1.156

  Cont: Mar∣cion. l. 5.
• (c) 1.157

  Hom. 10. in 1 Timoth.
• (d) 1.158

  In 1 Tim. 6
• (e) 1.159

  1 Tim. 4.5.
• (f) 1.160

  Haeres 75.
• (g) 1.161

  Ad 1 Tim. c. 4.
• (h) 1.162

  In Pastor. part. 2. c. 11. Acts 11.
• * 1.163

  In Titum & 1 Philip. & in 1 Tim. 3. Bibli∣oth. Photii n. 254.
• (i) 1.164

  De Script. Eccles.
• (k) 1.165

  In Praef. 1 Tim.
• (l) 1.166

  De vita & mort. SS. 87, 88.
• (m) 1.167

  Lib. 2. c. 34 2 Tim. 4.5.
• * 1.168

  In 4. Ephes.
• * 1.169

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 37.
• * 1.170

  Lib. 10. tripart. hist. cap. 5. The∣odoret.
• * 1.171

  1 Tim. 6.14.
• * 1.172

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.173

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.174

  Advers. Jovi∣nian.
• * 1.175

  Cap. 6.
• ‖ 1.176

  Can. 17.
• * 1.177

  Epist. 87. ad Episc. Afri••.
• * 1.178

  Tit. 3.10.
• * 1.179

  Tit. 2.15.
• * 1.180

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.181

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.182

  1 Tim. 3.
• (a) 1.183

  De script. Eccles. in Tit••.
• (b) 1.184

  In Synops.
• (c) 1.185

  De vita & morte S. Sanct.
• (d) 1.186

  Lib. 38. c. 10
• (e) 1.187

  Apud Oecu∣m••n. in praefat. in Tit. & in 1 Timoth. 3.
• (f) 1.188

  In pastor. part. 2. c. 11.
• (g) 1.189

  Praefat. in 1 Tim. & in 2 Tim. 1.
• (h) 1.190

  In 1 Tim. 1. & in 2 Tim. 1.6.
• (i) 1.191

  In 1 Tit.
• (k) 1.192

  Lib. 2. c. 34.
• (l) 1.193

  In Synopsis Sacr. Script.
• (m) 1.194

  Ad Paulam & Eustoch.
• (n) 1.195

  Coment. ad Titum.
• (o) 1.196

  Ibid.
• * 1.197

  Lib. 4. c. 21.
• * 1.198

  Acts 12. & Acts 13.
• * 1.199

  Epist. ad E∣vagr. De Script. Ec∣cles. & in pro∣aem. in Mat.
• * 1.200

  Lib. 6. Epist. 371.
• ‖ 1.201

  Lib. 14. c. 39.
• * 1.202

  In decret. de lib. authent. & apocryph.
• * 1.203

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• * 1.204

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• (a) 1.205

  De prae∣script.
• (b) 1.206

  Lib. 2. cont. Parmen.
• (c) 1.207

  Epist. 165.
• (d) 1.208

  De Script. Eccles.
• * 1.209

  De praescript.
• * 1.210

  De script. Ec∣cles. lib. 3. c. 35▪
• (a) 1.211

  Euseb. l. 4. c. 23. & l. 3. c. 4.
• (b) 1.212

  Origen▪ lib. 10. in 10. Rom.
• (c) 1.213

  S. Ambrose in 4. Coloss▪
• (d) 1.214

  Ignatius Epist. ad Ephes. & Euseb. lib. 3. c▪ 35.
• (e) 1.215

  Ar••tha••in 1 Apocal.
• (f) 1.216

  Epist. ad Philip. & Theod▪ ret. ib. & 1 Tim. 3.
• (g) 1.217

  Eu∣seb. l. 3. c. 4. apud Gallias. So Ruffin•••••• read•• it. In Galatia, so is intimated in Scripture, and so the Roman Martyrol.
• (h) 1.218

  Ignatiu•• Epist. ad Antioch. & Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22.
• * 1.219

  In Martyrologio Roman.
• * 1.220

  Lib. 3. c. 37.
• * 1.221

  Lib. 3. cap 3.
• * 1.222

  Epist. 42.
• * 1.223

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.224

  Vbi supra apud Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23.
• * 1.225

  Comment. in ep. ad Titum.
• * 1.226

  Ad Nepotian. & de 7. ordin. Eccles.
• * 1.227

  2 Thess. 3.14.
• * 1.228

  Acts 15.
• * 1.229

  In Act. Apost.
• * 1.230

  Acts 13.
• * 1.231

  Acts 20.
• * 1.232

  Acts 20.4.
• * 1.233

  Verse 18.
• * 1.234

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.235

  Lib. 3. cap. 14.
• * 1.236

  1 Cor. 5.3.
• * 1.237

  v. 4.
• * 1.238

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.239

  Epist. ad Ant••∣och.
• * 1.240

  In 1 Tim▪ 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Homil. 11.
• * 1.241

  Epist ad Corin.
• * 1.242

  1 Pet. 5.1.
• * 1.243

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Phil. 1.
• * 1.244

  In 1 Phil.
• * 1.245

  Page 5••.
• * 1.246

  1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.247

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.248

  Idem ait S. Dion••sius Ec••cl••s. hierarch. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.249

  2 Cor. 6.4. 1 Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.250

  In 1 Phil.
• * 1.251

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.252

  Epist. 59. ad Paulinum.
• (a) 1.253

  Can. 15. & 16.
• (b) 1.254

  c. 9. & alibi.
• (c) 1.255

  Post adven. Epis. Cypri.
• (d) 1.256

  Advers. Pra∣xeam.
• (e) 1.257

  Lib. 3. c. 59. de vita Const.
• * 1.258

  Ca. 4. cap. 18. de Or∣thod. fide.
• * 1.259

  Anno Dom. 257.
• * 1.260

  Epist. ad Trall.
• * 1.261

  Epist. ad He∣••on.
• * 1.262

  Lib. 7. etymo∣log. c. 12.
• * 1.263

  Rom. 16.17.
• * 1.264

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 36
• * 1.265

  Epist. ad Ephes.
• * 1.266

  Euseb. lib. 7. c. 24.
• * 1.267

  Can. 6.
• * 1.268

  Hist. tripart. lib. 4. c. 29.
• * 1.269

  Lib. 4. c. 14.
• * 1.270

  Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 18.
• * 1.271

  Epist. 11.
• * 1.272

  Haeres. 75.
• * 1.273

  Epist. 59.
• * 1.274

  1 Tim. 8.
• * 1.275

  Lib. 7. cap. 19.
• * 1.276

  1. lib. 8. c. ult. Apost. constitut.
• * 1.277

  2. lib. 3. hist. cap. 31.
• * 1.278

  3. lib. 9. c. 14. hist. tripart.
• * 1.279

  4. lib. 3. c. 21.
• * 1.280

  5. lib. 4. c. 20.
• * 1.281

  6. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 9.
• * 1.282

  7. Eccles. hie∣rarch.
• * 1.283

  8. Lib. 7.12▪
• * 1.284

  And Sacerdos.
• (a) 1.285

  Lib. 8. c. 46.
• (b) 1.286

  Lib 3. Ep. 1.
• (c) 1.287

  Lib. 7. c. 28.
• (d) 1.288

  Lib. de bap∣tism.
• (e) 1.289

  Epist. 69.
• (f) 1.290

  Euseb. lib. 3. c. 21.
• (g) 1.291

  Lib. 3. c. 35.
• (h) 1.292

  Epist. com. provinc. ad S. Leonem.
• * 1.293

  Lib. 4. cap. 26.
• * 1.294

  Lib. 7. Etymol. c. 12.
• * 1.295

  Comment. in 4. Ephes.
• * 1.296

  Quaest. Vet. & N. Testam. Qu. 101.
• * 1.297

  In 1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.298

  In 4. Ephes.
• * 1.299

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.300

  Can. 1. & 2.
• * 1.301

  Lib. ad Par∣men.
• * 1.302

  De vita Au∣gust. c. 4.
• * 1.303

  Can. 29.
• * 1.304

  Lib. 7. c. 26.
• * 1.305

  Can. 3. Nicene Concil.
• * 1.306

  Lib. 2. c. 1. hist. tripart. Lib. 3. tripart. c. 2.
• * 1.307

  Hist. tripart. l. 11. c. 5. Lib. 7. etymol. c. 12.
• * 1.308

  Per Bi••ium Paris.
• * 1.309

  Can. 2.
• * 1.310

  Can. 10.
• * 1.311

  Lib. 5. c. 8.
• * 1.312

  Epist. 52.
• * 1.313

  Can. Apost. 1. & 2.
• * 1.314

  Epist. Vnica.
• * 1.315

  Can. 4.
• * 1.316

  Can. 19.
• * 1.317

  Can. 12.
• * 1.318

  Can. 4.
• * 1.319

  A. D. 509.
• * 1.320

  Theodoret. l. 9. cap. 44.
• * 1.321

  Cap. 1▪ 2. Lib. 6. hist. cap. 33.
• * 1.322

  A. D. 555.
• * 1.323

  In libr. Ponti∣ficali. vit. Pe∣lag. 1.
• * 1.324

  Can. 9. Concil. Sardic.
• * 1.325

  Epist. 3. Epist. 84. c. 4.
• * 1.326

  Lib. 1. c. 12. de actis cum Feli∣ce Manich. lib. 4. Epist. 2.
• * 1.327

  In 1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.328

  De praescript. cap. 32.
• * 1.329

  Lib. 4. cap. 23
• * 1.330

  cap. 1.
• * 1.331

  S. Hieron. ad Rusticum Nar∣bonens. apud Gratian. dist. 95. cad. ecce••e∣go casu••, ibid.
• * 1.332

  The Nicene Creed.
• * 1.333

  Haeres. 75.
• * 1.334

  Eccles. hier. c. 5.
• * 1.335

  Lib. 6. cap. 23
• * 1.336

  Can. 13.
• * 1.337

  Tripart. Hist. lib. 2. c. 12. ex Theodoret.
• * 1.338

  Can. 19.
• * 1.339

  Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist. Presb. & Diacon. Mareotic. ad Curiosum & Philagrium.
• * 1.340

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.341

  Cap. 5.
• * 1.342

  Can. 6.
• * 1.343

  Can. 13.
• * 1.344

  Ad Evagrium.
• * 1.345

  Homil. 2. in 1. Tim. 2.
• * 1.346

  Can. 37.
• * 1.347

  Can. 20.
• * 1.348

  Haeres. 75.
• * 1.349

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33.
• * 1.350

  Can. 45.
• * 1.351

  Cap. 19.
• * 1.352

  Cap. 9.
• ‖ 1.353

  Cap. 2. & 6.
• * 1.354

  Nov••ll. constit. 6. & 123. cap. 16.
• * 1.355

  Cap. 6.
• * 1.356

  Can. 2. & 3.
• * 1.357

  Epist. 33▪
• * 1.358

  De Eccles. c. 11.
• * 1.359

  Danam part. 2. Isagog. lib. 2. cap. 22. Perron. repl. fol. 92. impres. 1605.
• * 1.360

  Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. per Ruffinum.
• * 1.361

  Ibid. c. 10. & apud Theodo∣ret. l. 1.
• * 1.362

  Eccles. Hist. lib. 11. cap. 6. per Ruffinum.
• * 1.363

  Epist. de Cho∣repisc.
• * 1.364

  Epist. ad Ju∣baian.
• * 1.365

  Apud Sev. Bi∣nium in 1 tom. Concil.
• * 1.366

  Homil. 18. in Act.
• * 1.367

  In cap. 5. de Eccles. hierarch.
• * 1.368

  Lib. 3. hist. cap. 17.
• (a) 1.369

  De Baptism.
• (b) 1.370

  Epist. 1. cap. 3. ad Decent.
• (c) 1.371

  Epist 4.
• (d) 1.372

  Epist. 88.
• (e) 1.373

  Epist. ad E∣pisc. German.
• (f) 1.374

  Lib. 3. Ep. 9
• (g) 1.375

  Apud Gra∣tian. de conse∣crat. dist. 5. can. ut jejuni.
• (h) 1.376

  Ibid. can. ut Episcopi.
• (i) 1.377

  Concil. He∣spal. can. 7.
• * 1.378

  Vide Anast 1. biblioth. ••rae••at. in Can. 8. Syno∣di.
• * 1.379

  Vide Optatum lib. 2. S. Ber∣nard. in vita S. Malachiae. Surium. tom. 1. in F••br. Dial. adv. Lucifer.
• * 1.380

  Caus. 11 q. 3. can. Quod prae∣decessor.
• * 1.381

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.382

  Quest. 101. Vet. & N. Testam. Basileae.
• * 1.383

  Lib. 3. Epist. 26
• * 1.384

  Can. 52.
• * 1.385

  Can. 2.
• * 1.386

  Can. 20.
• * 1.387

  Can. 1.
• * 1.388

  Epist. 1. ad Di∣cent. cap. 3.
• * 1.389

  Epist. ad Trall.
• * 1.390

  Lib. 3. Epist. 9.
• * 1.391

  Lib. 4. cap. 63.
• * 1.392

  Lib. 6. hist. c. 26 Can. 10.
• * 1.393

  Lib. 2. adv. Parmen.
• * 1.394

  Lib. 6. hist. c. 26 Homil. 7. in Jerem.
• * 1.395

  Can. 69.
• * 1.396

  Can. 25.
• * 1.397

  Hist. tripart. lib. 1. cap. 12.
• * 1.398

  De dignit. sa∣cerdot. c. 2.
• * 1.399

  Cap. 3
• * 1.400

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.401

  Ep. ad Ephes.
• * 1.402

  Apologia pro Ignatio.
• (a) 1.403

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 30.
• (b) 1.404

  De Script. Eccles.
• (c) 1.405

  Apud Eu∣seb. quem Lati∣nè reddidit.
• * 1.406

  Can. 56.
• * 1.407

  Ideus videre est apud Da∣masum. Ep. de Chorepiscopis.
• * 1.408

  Can. 19.
• * 1.409

  Can. 20.
• * 1.410

  Epist. ad Ne∣potian.
• * 1.411

  Lib. 5. cap. 28.
• * 1.412

  Can. 33.
• * 1.413

  Can. 5.
• * 1.414

  Can. 59.
• * 1.415

  Can. 4.
• * 1.416

  Can. 9.
• * 1.417

  Can. 13. & 14.
• * 1.418

  Epist. 10.
• * 1.419

  Epist. 11.
• * 1.420

  Epist. 12.
• * 1.421

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.422

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.423

  Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 3.
• * 1.424

  Ibid. cap. 4.
• * 1.425

  Advers. Vigi∣lant. Epist. 53.
• * 1.426

  Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.427

  Tripart. hist. lib. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.428

  Can. 4. Ann. Dou••. 397.
• * 1.429

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.430

  Can. 8.
• * 1.431

  Can. 10.
• * 1.432

  Act. 4. can. 83.
• * 1.433

  Post epist. Ar∣chimandrita∣rum ad Conci∣lium pro Dios∣cori rehabilita∣tione.
• * 1.434

  Concil. Ephes. c. 5.
• * 1.435

  Cap. 15. de cor∣rept. & gratiâ.
• * 1.436

  Can. 55.
• * 1.437

  Vbi suprà cap. 3.
• * 1.438

  Cap. 15. ibid.
• * 1.439

  Novel. constit. 123. c. 11.
• * 1.440

  2 Corinth. 2.9.
• * 1.441

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.442

  Can. 9.
• * 1.443

  Tripart. hist. lib. 10. cap. 9.
• * 1.444

  Tripart. Hist. lib. 5. c. 35.
• * 1.445

  S. Ambrose E∣pist. lib. 2. Epist. 13.
• * 1.446

  In verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.447

  Tripart. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 12.
• * 1.448

  Can. 39.
• * 1.449

  Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 5.
• * 1.450

  Epist. ad Phila∣delph.
• * 1.451

  Lib. de dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2.
• * 1.452

  Lib. 10. Eccles▪ hist. c. 2.
• * 1.453

  Lib. 10. Eccles▪ hist. cap. 19.
• * 1.454

  Theodor. lib. 5. c. 18.
• * 1.455

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 25.
• * 1.456

  Homil. 83. in 26. Matth.
• * 1.457

  In 3. partis Supplem. q. 22. a. 5. Vide Aug. ep. 75. & Gratian. dist. 24. q. 2. c. Si habet, sed ibi [Princeps] non inseritur, sed tantùm in glossâ ordina∣riâ.
• * 1.458

  Vide the book of Order of Excommun. in Scotland, & the Hist. of Scotland. Ad∣monit. 2. p. 46. Knox his ex∣hortation to England.
• * 1.459

  Epist. ad Smyrn.
• * 1.460

  Can. Apost. 32.
• * 1.461

  Can. 5. Act. 4.
• * 1.462

  De baptism.
• * 1.463

  De coronâ mi∣lit. c. 3. vide S. Chrysost. hom. 11. in 1 Tim. & S. Hieron. dial. adv. Lucif.
• * 1.464

  Can. 6.
• * 1.465

  Can. 9.
• * 1.466

  Can. 8. part. 2. Act. 14.
• * 1.467

  Epist. 86.
• * 1.468

  Dist. 95. cap. Ecce ego.
• * 1.469

  1 Can. 40. 2 Epist. ad Ephes. 3 c. 24.
• * 1.470

  Lib. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.471

  Ad Rustic. Narbon. dist. 95. can. Ecce ego.
• * 1.472

  Can. 12.
• * 1.473

  An. Dom. 589.
• * 1.474

  Cap. 32.
• * 1.475

  Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem▪ Videatur Con∣cil. Carthag. Graec. can. 36.38. & 41. & Balsam. ibid. & apologia 2. Ju∣stini Martyris.
• * 1.476

  Vide Concil. E∣paun. c. 5. & Venet. c. 10.
• * 1.477

  Can. 41.
• * 1.478

  Can. 42.
• * 1.479

  Can. 38.
• ‖ 1.480

  Can. 5.
• * 1.481

  Can. 6.
• * 1.482

  Can. 31.
• * 1.483

  1 Tit. v. 5.
• * 1.484

  Epist. ad An∣tioch.
• * 1.485

  Can. 13.
• * 1.486

  Epist. 61. & 62
• * 1.487

  Hieron. ad Ne∣potian.
• * 1.488

  Lib. 1. offic. cap. 44.
• * 1.489

  Tripart. hist. lib. 5. cap. 32.
• * 1.490

  Epist. 68.
• * 1.491

  Homil. 3. in Act.
• * 1.492

  Epist. 120. lib. 3. de Sacerd.
• * 1.493

  Lib. 2 de offic.
• * 1.494

  Epist. 84. c. 5.
• * 1.495

  Can. 4.
• * 1.496

  Tripart. hist. lib. 3. cap. 9.
• * 1.497

  Act. 11.
• * 1.498

  Tripart. hist. lib. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.499

  Theodor. lib. 4. c. 5.
• * 1.500

  Socrat. lib. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.501

  In Ephes. 4.
• * 1.502

  Lib. 3. hist. c. 11.
• * 1.503

  Tripart. hist. lib. 10. c. 14.
• * 1.504

  Vide dist. 63. per tot. Grati∣an.
• * 1.505

  Epist. ad Soli∣tar.
• * 1.506

  Lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.507

  Lib. 5. cap. 23.
• * 1.508

  Pro••m. in lib. de fide.
• * 1.509

  Lib. 5. cap. 8.
• * 1.510

  Epist. Synod. ad Clerum C. Pta∣num part. 2. act. ••. part. 1. c. 32. Vide sect. 36. de simil. fere quaestione in fiue.
• * 1.511

  Action. 1. Con∣cil. Chalced.
• * 1.512

  Concil. Antisio∣dor. can. 7.
• * 1.513

  Socrat. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.514

  Epist. 3. per Ruffinum.
• * 1.515

  Heb. 13.7. & 17. 1 Pet. 5.2. Act. 20.
• * 1.516

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.517

  Lib. 3. de vita Constant. lib. de baptis. cap. 18.
• * 1.518

  Epist. 32.
• * 1.519

  Acts 15.25.
• * 1.520

  Lib. 4. polit. c. 15
• * 1.521

  Can. 45. Concil. Carthag. 3.
• * 1.522

  Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 17.
• * 1.523

  Lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.524

  Athanas. Episc. ad vitam soli∣tar. agentes.
• * 1.525

  Lib. 2. hist. c. 17.
• * 1.526

  Apud Binium. tom. 1. Concil.
• * 1.527

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Apolog. c. 37.
• * 1.528

  Lib. 2. contr. Parmeniam.
• * 1.529

  Lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. Vide Baron. A.D. 39. n. 10. & B. Rhenan. in notit. pro∣vinc. Imperial. in descript. Illyrici.
• * 1.530

  Can. 17.
• ‖ 1.531

  Can. 38.
• * 1.532

  Can. 6.
• * 1.533

  Lib. 5. ca. 23. Action. 7.
• * 1.534

  Epist. ad Le∣on. 1. Episc. Rom. Haeres. 86.
• * 1.535

  Concil. Chal∣ced. act. 16.
• * 1.536

  Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 28.
• * 1.537

  Apud. S. Hie∣ron. haeres. 69.
• * 1.538

  Lib. 4. c. 12. Encom. Cypri∣an. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 18. Vide apud. Eu∣seb. lib. 5. c. 22.
• * 1.539

  Can. 56.
• * 1.540

  Can. 6.
• * 1.541

  Lib. 5. c. 16.
• * 1.542

  Lib. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.543

  Jus Graeco. Rom. p. 89.
• * 1.544

  Vide Baron. An. Dom. 205. n. 27.
• * 1.545

  Lib. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.546

  G••miad. apud Hieron. Iohan. de Trit∣tenheim de script. Eccles.
• * 1.547

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.548

  Lib. 10. Eccl. hist.
• * 1.549

  Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap 33.
• * 1.550

  In 1 Cor. 12.
• * 1.551

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphan. haeres. 66. n. 6. Possi∣dod. in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21.
• * 1.552

  Lib. 4. cap. 15.
• * 1.553

  Lib. 4. Epist. 2.
• (a) 1.554

  In 1. Philip.
• (b) 1.555

  in 1 Phi∣lip.
• (c) 1.556

  in 1 Phi∣lip.
• (d) 1.557

  in 1 Phi∣lip.
• (e) 1.558

  lib. 2. contr. Parmen.
• (f) 1.559

  in 1 Tim. 3. & in 1 Phil.
• * 1.560

  Lib. 2. c. 11.
• * 1.561

  Concil. Anti∣o••h. c. 9.
• * 1.562

  Epist. 1. ad Jacobum Fra∣trem Domini.
• * 1.563

  vide Concil. Chalced. act. 1. in epist
• * 1.564

  Theod. & Valen∣tin. Imp.
• * 1.565

  in Epist. ad Titum. cap. 1.
• * 1.566

  Epist. ad An∣tioch. Epist. 21.
• * 1.567

  Ad Trullian. Ad Magnes.
• * 1.568

  Epist. 6.
• * 1.569

  Epist. 19.
• * 1.570

  Epist. 18.
• * 1.571

  in 1. ad Titum.
• * 1.572

  Jus Graco Rom. pag. 556
• * 1.573

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.574

  Epist. 55.
• * 1.575

  ibidem.
• * 1.576

  Epist. 52. Epist. 72.
• * 1.577

  In 1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.578

  1 Tim. 1.
• * 1.579

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.580

  In Isai. 3.
• * 1.581

  Can. 6.
• * 1.582

  Can. 20.
• * 1.583

  Can. 23.
• * 1.584

  Epist. ad Tral.
• * 1.585

  Epist. ad Phi∣ladelph.
• * 1.586

  Epist. 27. & alibi.
• * 1.587

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.588

  vide Concil. Byzacenum. An. Dom. 504 & Su••ium die 1 Januar. & Baron. in A. D. 504.
• * 1.589

  Epist. 2
• * 1.590

  advers. Luci∣fer. cap. 4.
• * 1.591

  Epist. ad Magnes.
• * 1.592

  Ad Ephes.
• * 1.593

  S. Cyprian▪ ep. 55.
• * 1.594

  Epist. 69.
• * 1.595

  Act. 4.
• * 1.596

  ••aeres. 75.
• * 1.597

  Can. 6.
• * 1.598

  lib. 2. decret. cap. 226.
• * 1.599

  lib. 18. ca. 45. Eccle. hist.
• * 1.600

  lib. 8. cap. 5. Etymol.
• * 1.601

  Vt suprd.
• * 1.602

  Can. 12.
• * 1.603

  Epist. 3.
• * 1.604

  Can. 10. Graec.
• * 1.605

  Epist. 1. ad Jacobum.
• * 1.606

  Apocal. 1. 1 Cor. 4. John 10.
• * 1.607

  In Titum.
• * 1.608

  Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22.
• * 1.609

  Matth. 23.8, 9, 10. Ephes. 4.
• * 1.610

  Luke 22.
• * 1.611

  John 13.
• * 1.612

  In locis ubi supra.
• * 1.613

  Gen. 1.
• * 1.614

  Psal. 110. Psal. 2.
• * 1.615

  Homil. 6. in Isai.
• * 1.616

  S. Bern. lib. 10. de considerat.
• * 1.617

  Lib. 19. de ci∣vit. Dei. c. 19.
• * 1.618

  De Vnitat. Eccles.
• * 1.619

  Acts 15. Rom. 12. Hebr. 13.
• * 1.620

  Lib. 3. cap. 23. Epist. ad Greg. Nyssen. Theodoret. lib. 5. ca. 9.
• * 1.621

  Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 9.
• * 1.622

  Theodor. lib. 1. c. 4. &c. 5. Athanas. Apo∣log. 2. Epist 17, 18.19. apud S. Augustin.
• * 1.623

  In Psal. 13. apud Baron. An. Dom. 58. n. 2.
• * 1.624

  1 Thess. 5.13.
• * 1.625

  Epist. 65.
• * 1.626

  Epist. decret.
• * 1.627

  Epist. ad Heron.
• * 1.628

  Vrban. ibid.
• * 1.629

  Epist. ad M••gnes.
• * 1.630

  1 Cor. 6.
• * 1.631

  In hunc locum.
• * 1.632

  Vide etiam August. de ope∣re Monarch. ca. 29.
• * 1.633

  Can. 7. Latin.
• * 1.634

  Vide Zonar▪ in Can. Apostol.
• * 1.635

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 3.
• * 1.636

  Can. 14.
• * 1.637

  Epist. 66.
• * 1.638

  Vide Synod. Roman. sub Sylvestr. c. 4. Concil. Chalced. c. 26. & Zonar. ibid.
• * 1.639

  Justin. Martyr Apolog. 2.
• * 1.640

  Apud Bur∣chard. lib. 2. de∣cret. cap. 99.
• * 1.641

  Part. Act. 15. Can. 7.
• * 1.642

  Can. 20.
• * 1.643

  Epist. ad Ephes.
• * 1.644

  Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• * 1.645

  Tripart. hist. lib. 7. cap. 8.
• * 1.646

  S. August lib. 6. Confess. cap. 4. Epist. 110.
• * 1.647

  Epist. 147.
• * 1.648

  De opere Mo∣nach. cap. 29.
• * 1.649

  Tripart. hist. lib. 4. cap. 25. Lib. 10. cap. 6. ibid. Lib. 11. cap. 8▪ ibid. Lib. 5. Epist. Ambrose 33. Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 1.
• * 1.650

  Epist. 84.
• * 1.651

  In 1 Cor. 6.
• * 1.652

  2 Tim. 2.4.
• * 1.653

  Eccles. hierar. c. 5.
• * 1.654

  2 Tim. 4. v. 9▪ & 12.
• * 1.655

  Phil. 2. v. 25, 26.
• * 1.656

  Epist. ad Anti∣och.
• * 1.657

  Can. 56.
• * 1.658

  Epist. 9.
• * 1.659

  Eiist. 31. & 39. haeres. 68.
• * 1.660

  Concil. Hispal. cap. 6.
• * 1.661

  Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 37.
• * 1.662

  Concil. H••spal. ubi supra.
• * 1.663

  Epist. ad Ja∣cob. Fratr. Dom.
• * 1.664

  De 7. Ordin. Eccles.
• * 1.665

  Epist. 13. ad Valent.
• * 1.666

  Epist. ad So. litar.
• * 1.667

  Suidas in vltâ Leontii.
• * 1.668

  Can. 9. A. D. 453.
• * 1.669

  Novell. constit. 123.
• * 1.670

  Lib. 7. epist. 66.
• * 1.671

  Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Am∣bros. in 1 Tim. 5.1. & lib. 1. de offic. c. 20. S. August. lib. 3. contra Crescon. & Epist. 137.
• * 1.672

  1 Tim. 5.17.
• * 1.673

  Sect. 48. lib. 5. cap. 22.
• * 1.674

  Rom. 16.
• * 1.675

  1 Epist. cap. 3.
• * 1.676

  Cap. 3. adv. haereses.
• * 1.677

  Cap. 14.