A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. The ſame confirmed by the Ancients.
AS for Humane teſtimony, the heap is ſo great brought in by Dav. Blondel, that I have the leſs mind to ſay any more of it; But ſhall only (beſides all that is ſaid before on the by) recite a few of thoſe teſtimones which moſt convinced my own underſtanding in the reading of them in the Authors themſelves, leaving others to take what they ſee beſt out of Blondels ſtore.
I. I know that ſomewhat may be ſaid againſt what I ſhall firſt cite, but I think not of ſufficient force. I begin with it, though not firſt in time, becauſe firſt in Authority. The 1. Concil. Nicaen. in their Epiſtle to the Church of Alexand. and all the Churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, thus decree concerning thoſe that were Ordained by Meletius, (as Socrat. lib. 1. c. 6. tranſlated by Grynaeus) Hi autem qui Dei gratia & veſtris precibus adjuti ad nullum ſchiſma deflexiſſe comperti ſunt, ſed intra Catholicae & Apoſtolicae Eccleſiae fines ab erroris labe vacuos ſe continuerint, authoritatem habeant tum Miniſtros ordinandi, tum eos qui clero digni fuerint nominandi, tum denique omnia ex lege & inſtituto Eccleſiaſtico libere exequendi] Now ordaining Miniſters and nominating men for the Clergy, are acts which, if any, ſhew Presbyters to be Rulers in the Church.
Obj. 1. Perhaps it is Biſhops ordained by Meletius that are here ſpoken of: or Biſhops with the Presbyters reſpectively.
Anſw. There is no more in the Text but this, [They decreed further touching ſuch as were entred into holy Orders by his laying on of hands, that they, after confirmation with more myſtical laying on of hands ſhould be admitted into the fellowſhip of the Church, with this condition that they ſhould enjoy their dignity and degree of Miniſtry, yet that they be inferiour to all the Paſtors throughout every province and Church—Moreover that they have no authority to elect the Miniſters approved by their cenſures, no not ſo much as to nominate them which are to execute the Eccleſiaſtical functions, nor to intermeddle with any thing touching them that are within Alexanders juriſdiction, without the conſent of the Biſhop of the Catholick Church.] And then they add as afore, that thoſe that fell not into Schiſm (as they did)Yet I doubt not that they were not to Conſecrate Miniſters alone without the Biſhop. ſhall have authority to Conſecrate Miniſters, and nominate ſuch as ſhall be thought worthy of the Clergy. Now that it is Presbyters and not Biſhops that are here ſpoken of appeareth 1. In that it is without any note of eminency ſaid to be [ſuch as were entred into Holy Orders.] 2. In that it is ſuch as ſo entred by the Laying on of Meletius's hands: Wherereas a Biſhop muſt be ordained by the hands of three Biſhops. And the Schiſm of one of the three, would not have fruſtrated the Ordination, if the other two ſtood firm in the Catholick Union. 3. Becauſe it is the priviledge of Presbyters that is denyed them: Though they be not degraded, they are to be below all other Paſtors in every Church: which cannot be, that they ſhall be Biſhops below all Presbyters. 4. Becauſe the conſent of the Biſhop of the Catholick Church (where they ſhall come) is neceſſary to their officiating. But if it could have been proved that Biſhops had been here included, yet while Presbyters alſo are included, it will not invalidate the teſtimony. But indeed here is no ſuch proof. I confeſs that Nicephorus (a leſs credible Author) ſeemeth to apply it to Biſhops Ordained by Meletius: But no ſuch thing can be gathered out of Sozomen, either Tripart. lib. 1. c. 18. where he deſcribeth Meletius and his party, or Tripart lib. 2. c. 12. where he reciteth the ſame Epiſtle that Socrates doth. But I would pretend to no more certainty than is evident.
II. Pius Epiſcop. Roman. in Biblioth. Pat. Tom. 3. p. 15. Epiſt. Juſto Epiſcopo inquit, [Presbyteri & Diaconi non ut Majorem, ſed ut Miniſtrum Chriſti te obſervent—ſalutat te ſenatus pa…per Chriſti apud Romam conſtitutus: ſaluta omne Collegium fratrum qui tecum ſunt in Domino—And epiſt. prima eidem Juſto, he reckoneth Timotby and Mark with the Presbyters educated by the Apoſtles. Now if they were of the Senate, the Colledge, and the ſame name Presbyters as Biſhops had, we have no reaſon to think that they had not the power of the keys.
III. Tertullian de poenit. to caſt himſelf down at the feet of the Presbyters; which implyeth that they had the power of the keys for Abſolution: And thoſe whom he calleth [Seniores] Apolog. managed the Diſcipline, and that not in a Chancellors Court, but in the ſame Congregations where and when they Aſſembled for publick worſhip. If any will ſay that Biſhops are here included, I will not deny it; But if they will ſay that when he nameth the Seniors and Presbyters without diſtinction, that he excludeth all ſave the Biſhop alone, I ſhall not believe that Tertullian ſpeaketh ſo un-intelligibly. Unleſs they will follow Dr. Hammond and believe (as I do not) that there was yet but One Presbyter, who was the Biſhop in a Church, or in moſt Churches: which de facto would be for us.
IV. The Teſtimonies of Clem. Roman. Ignat. Juſtin Martyr, may be gathered out of the words forecited. Hierom's Teſtimony in this caſe is ſo plain and full, and trite in every writing (Epiſt ad Evagr. & paſſim, making them the Apoſtles Succeſſors, and the ſame with the Biſhops, except only in ordination) that I will not trouble you with reciting it.
V. Cyprian neither would nor could govern his Church without the concurrenceEpiſt. 28. p. 64. Edit. Goulartii. of the Presbyters: (before cited) De Gaia deſideraſtis ut de Philumeno & Fortunato hypodiaconis & Favorino acolutho, reſcribam: cui rei non potui me ſolum judicem dare; cum multi adhuc de Clero abſentes ſint; nec locum ſuum vel ſero repetendum putaverint, & haec ſingulorum tractanda ſit & limanda plenius ratio; non tantum cum collegis meis, ſed & cum plebe ipſa univerſa. Epiſt. 36. (edit. Goulart.) He ſheweth that it is the Clergies duty, to take care of the widows, the ſick, the poor, the ſtrangers: (he the Biſhop was then abſent.) So alſo Ep. 37. And Epiſt. 10. he reprehendeth the Presbyters for reconciling and abſolving the Lapſed overhaſtily and with neglect and contempt of the Biſhop; but not as if the work were not their office work to do: Nay he giveth us this full plain teſtimony, that even in this publick Abſolution in foro exteriore, the true cuſtom of the Church was for the Biſhop and his Presbyters together to impoſe hands on the penitent and ſo abſolve them, receive them, and give them the Sacrament. Pag. 30. ſaith he, Nam cum in minoribus peccatisThe next Epiſ. 7. is worthy to be read of all that ſuffer for the truth to keep them from pride, unrulineſs, and ſcandal. and ſo is the 8. agant peccatores poenitentiam juſto tempore, & ſecundum diſciplinae ordinem, ad exomologeſin veniant, & per impoſitionem manus Epiſcopi & Cleri jus Communionis accipiant; Nunc crudo tempore, perſecutione adhuc perſeverante, nondum reſtituta Eccleſiae ipſius pace, ad Communicationem admittuntur, & offertur nomen eorum, & nondum poenitentia acta, nondum exomologeſi facta, nondum manu e. s ab Epiſcopo & Clero impoſita, Euchariſtia illis datur.]
Epiſt. 5. p. 15. He writeth to the Clergy in his abſence to do the work of Diſcipline, even their own part and his, and (as no man doubteth but they did the whole work in the publick aſſembly when he was abſent ſo long time, ſo (that you may ſee what kind of Chappel meetings they had) it being the cuſtome for encouragement of ſufferers, to go to the Confeſſors and viſit them and there celebrate the Sacrament,) he perſwadeth them that the people may not go crowding by great companies at once, leſt it ſtir up envy, and they be denied entrance (it's like they were in Priſon) and loſe all while they are inſatiable to get more: But that one Presbyter and one Deacon go one day, and another another day by turns, becauſe the Change of perſons, and viciſſitude of meeters would break the envy: and all ſhould be done in meekneſs and humility.
But the words I inſiſt on are, [Peto vos pro fide & religione veſtra, fungamini illic & Veſtris partibus & meis, ut nihil vel ad diſciplinam vel ad diligentiam deſit.] And if the whole work of Diſcipline be ſuch as is partly their own part, and partly what they may do in the Biſhops abſence in his ſtead, it is within the power of their function: For a Lay-man or a Deacon cannot do all the Presbyters work in his abſence.
And Epiſt. 6. p. 17. Having exhorted the ſufferers or confeſſors not to grow proud by it, and lamented that ſome after ſufferings grew inſolent and were a ſhame to the Church, he addeth (Nec a Diaconis aut Presbyteris regi poſſe,] Shewing that even the Government of the Confeſſors belonged to them both in their places: And of himſelf he ſaith to his Presbyters, Solus reſcribere nihil potui, quando a primordio Epiſcopatus mei ſtatuerim nihil ſine conſilio veſtro, & ſive Conſenſu Plebis meae, privata ſententia gerere—ſed cum venero—in Commune tractabimus—As to them that ſay, This was only Cyprians arbitrary condeſcenſion, I anſwer, 1. He ſaith Non potui, And 2. he elſewhere ſpeaketh of it as due, 3. It agreeth with the Canons and cuſtomes of thoſe times: 4. Cyprian pleadeth ſo much for the Biſhops prerogative, that we have little reaſon to think him both ſo ſubmiſſive and imprudent, as to bring up ill cuſtomes, and teach the Miniſters and people to expect that as their part which belonged not to them, and ſo to corrupt the Church.
And in the Ep. 11. p. 32. again he ſaith [Ante exomologeſin graviſſimi & extremi delicti factam, ante manum ab Epiſcopo & Clero in poenitentem impoſitam, offerre lapſis pacem & Euchariſtiam dare, id eſt ſanctum Domini corpus profanare audeant—
The ſame he hath again Ep. 12. p. 37. (with an examinabuntur ſingula praeſentibus & judicantibus vobis (that is, the people, to ſhew how great the Church was.)
Afterward Ep. 14. he directeth the Presbyters to abſolve thoſe by Impoſition of hands themſelves without him that are infirm and in danger, but that the reſt muſt be publickly reconciled in the Church praeſente & ſtantium plebe. To recite all of this nature in Cyprian, would be too long.
VI. I will add next a General Teſtimony viz. the conſtant cuſtome of all Churches, even Rome it ſelf, where the Presbyters have Governed without a Biſhop in the intervals, when after one Biſhops death another was not choſen. As before the choice of Fabian's ſucceſſor you may ſee by the Epiſtles of the Roman Clergy to Cyprian. Marcion was expelled by the Roman Presbytes ſede vacante, Epiphan. Haereſ. 42. And if they had the power over one another, more over the flock.
And I need bring no particular proofs of this: For when Biſhops have beenSee Inſtances in Blondel. §. 3. p. 183, 184. baniſhed, impriſoned, dead, and the ſeat vacant a year, yea, divers years together (as it hath been at Rome) was the Church no Church all that time? Had it no Government? Was there no power of the Keys? Was the Church laid common to all? This inſtance is ſo full as nothing can be ſaid againſt it, but that it was in Caſe of Neceſſity. But that only proveth that it is the Presbyters office work, though out of a caſe of neceſſity they muſt do it with the Biſhop, and not without him. But a Lay-man may not do a Presbyters proper work on ſuch a pretence. However the Church by this practice hath declared it's judgment in the caſe.
VII. Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 23. is [Ut Epiſcopus nullius cauſam audiat abſque praeſentia Clericorum ſuorum; Alioquin irrita erit ſententia Epiſcopi, niſi Clericorum praeſentia confirmetur. If it be ſaid that here is no mention of their Conſent, but of their Preſence only, I anſwer, It is a preſence neceſſary to the Confirmation of the Biſhops ſentence: and the preſence of Diſſenters would rather infirm the ſentence (more than their abſence) than confirm it. And the conjunct Canons ſhew that it is Conſent that is meant. For,
Can. 32. it's ſaid [Irrita erit donatio Epiſcoporum, vel venditio, vel commutatio rei Eccleſiaſticae, abſque conniventia & ſubſcriptione Clericorum: where ſuch a Connivence is meant as is joyned with ſubſcription. And if ſubſcription of the Presbyters was neceſſary in theſe caſes, no leſs than Conſent is meant in the other.
Which is yet more apparent by thoſe following Canons, which forbid the Biſhop to Ordain without his Clergy, or to accuſe any of them but by proof in a Synod, or to ſuffer a Presbyter to ſtand while he ſitteth. And the Canons that place the Biſhop in conſeſſu Presbyterorum, and ſet him in the midſt of them in the ſame ſeat in the Church, and call him their Colleague: The Canons which make the Presbyters Governours of the Rural Churches, and make the Deacons ſervants to them, of which the number is too great to be now recited—
Even here Can. 22. it's ſaid [Epiſcopus ſine Concilio Clerioorum ſuorum ClericosNote it is not conſilio but concilio. non ordinet: Ita ut Civium aſſenſum & conniventiam & teſtimonium quaerat.] And if not ſine concilio * then not contra conſilium. And if the conſent of the Laity be neceſſary, ſure the Clergies is ſo too.
Can. 29. Epiſcopus ſi Clerico vel Laico crimen impoſuerit, deducatur ad probationem in Synodum. Can. 30. Caveant Judices Eccleſiae ne abſente eo cujus cauſa ventilatur ſententiam proferant; quia irrita erit, imo & cauſam in Synodo profacto dabunt. And if a Biſhop muſt not ſo much as accuſe but in a Synod on proof, much lefs might he be judge alone.
Can. 33. appointeth that Biſhops or Presbyters ſhall be invited to preach, and conſecrate the Oblation, when they come into ſtrange Churches] So for there was no difference.
Can. 34. Ut Epiſcopus in quolibet loco ſedens, ſtare Presbyterum non patiatur.
35. Ut Epiſcopus in Eccleſia & in conſeſſu Presbyterorum ſublimior ſedeat. Intra domum vero Collegam Presbyterorum ſe eſſe cognoſcat.
Can. 36. Presbyteri qui per Dioeceſes Eccleſias regunt, &c.
Can 37. Diaconus ita ſe Presbyteri, ut Epiſcopi miniſtrum eſſe cognoſcat. vid. & Can. 38, 39, 40.
Yea even in Ordination it is ſaid, Can. 2. Presbyterquum Ordinatur, Epiſcopo eum benedicente, & manum ſuper ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praeſentes ſunt manus ſuas juxta manum Epiſcopi, ſuper Caput illius teneant. Et Can. 3. Diaconus quum ordinatur ſolus Epiſcopus, qui eum benedicit, manus ſuper caput illius ponat: quia non ad Sacerdotium ſed ad miniſterium conſecratur] So that Prieſthood was to be conferred by the hands of Prieſts, and the Biſhop's alone was not enough; But Deacons might be Ordained by a Biſhop without Presbyters.]
What need I tire the Reader with other Councils teſtimonies? when this, though called Provincial having 214 Biſhops, and among them Aurelius, Auguſtine, &c. is no leſs valuable than any General Council in the volumes of the Councils.
VIII. In the Arabick Canons of the Concil. Nic. 1. (which I cite not for their juſtification, but as teſtifying the matter of fact in the times of which they were written whenſoever it was) it's ſaid, Can. 47. After one Biſhop is forbid to abſolve him that another hath Excommunicated [Eadem Lex erit de Sacerdote, id eſt, Ut nullus Sacerdos ſolvat aut liget quem alius Sacerdos ſolverit aut ligaverit, quamdiu ille qui ſolvit aut ligavit vixerit: Poſt mortem vero ſucceſſor ejus ſolvet quem mortuus ligavit: ſed debet Epiſcopus praeeſſe huic negotio—Neque convenit ut Epiſcopus aut Archiepiſcopus ſolvat aut liget eum, qui digne a Sacerdote ſolutus aut ligatus fuit, quamdiu ille qui ſolvit aut ligavit vixerit.] Here you ſee the Prieſt may bind and looſe, and that in foro Eccleſiaſtico: yea ſo faſt that no Biſhop or Archbiſhop may looſe or bind contrarily during his life. Then Presbyters had the Keys.
And Can 57. (according to other Canons cited before) they ſay, [The Arch-Presbyter in the Biſhops abſence ſhall be honoured as the Biſhop, becauſe he is in his place; and let him be the Head of the Prieſts, who are under his power in the Church, with all that the Archdeacon is over.] And if one Presbyter may Rule the reſt as a Biſhop, the Government of the flock is not above their Order or place. If it be ſaid that he doth it as the Biſhops Deputy, it is anſwered oft enough before. Spiritual Power (or Paſtoral) is deputable to none but ſuch as are of the ſame Order: which is not properly a deputation.
IX. Presbyters had power to Baptize and to celebrate the Lords Supper, Therefore they had power to judge who were Baptizable, and who were capable of the Lords Supper: For 1. Elſe they would not do it as Chriſts Miniſters, but as the executioners of anothers judgment. And if ſo, they may give both Sacraments to Turks and Infidels if they be bid. And then indeed the Prieſt is not the Baptizer or Conſecrater Morally, but the Biſhop doth it by the Prieſt: All which are falſe. And a Presbyter may preach and Baptize in any Infidel Kingdom, where no Biſhop hath any Dioceſe, and this as an ordinary caſe (in Turky, Tartary, China, Japan, &c.) And what Biſhop ſhall there tell him whom to Baptize where there is no Biſhop? And the power of Baptizing is the firſt and greateſt Key of the Church, even the Key of admiſſion.
And they that do among us deny a Presbyter the power of judging whom to Baptize and give the Lords Supper to, do not give it to the Biſhop (who knoweth not of the perſons) But the Directive part they commit to a Convocation of Biſhops and Presbyters; and the Judicial partly to the Prieſt, and partly to a Lay-Chancellor.
X. Epiphanius Haereſ. 75. ſaith, [The Apoſtles did not ſet all in full order at once: And at firſt there was need of Presbyters and Deacons; by whom both Eccleſiaſtical affairs may be adminiſtred: Therefore where no man was found worthy of Epiſcopacy, in that place no Biſhop was ſet] By which it appeareth that he thought that for ſome time ſome Churches were Governed without Biſhops: And if ſo, it there belonged to the Presbyters office to govern.
Whereto we may add the opinion of many Epiſcopal men, who think that during the Apoſtles times, they were the only Biſhops in moſt Churches themſelves. And if ſo, Then in their long and frequent abſence the Presbyters muſt be the governours.
XI. That many Councils have had Presbyters, yea many of them is paſt doubt: Look but in the Councils ſubſcriptions and you will ſee it. A Synod of ſome Biſhops and more Presbyters and Deacons gathered at Rome, decreed the Excommunication of Novatianus and his adherents, Euſeb. lib. 6. c. 43.
Noetus was convented, judged, expelled by the Seſſion of Presbyters, Epiphan. Haereſ. 47. c. 1.
See a great number of inſtances of Councils held by Biſhops with their Presbyters in Blondel, de Epiſc. ſect. 3. p. 202. Yea one was held at Rome praeſidentibus cum Joanne 12 Presbyteris, An. 964. vid. Blond. p. 203, 206, 207.
Yea they had places and votes in General Councils: Not only ut aliorum procuratores, as Victor and Vincentius in Nic. 1. but as the Paſtors of their Churches, and in their proper right. I need not urge Selden's Arabick Catalogue in Eutych. Alex. where there were two perſons for divers particular places: or Zonaras who ſaith, There were Prieſts, Deacons and Monks; nor Athanaſius a Deacon's preſence: Evenof late the Council of Baſil is a ſufficient proof.
XII. The foreſaid Canons of Carthage which are ſo full, are inſerted into the body of the Canon Law, and in the Canons of Egbert Archbiſhop of York, as Biſhop Uſher and others have obſerved.
XXIII. Hierom's [Communi Presbyterorum Concilio Eccleſiae gubernabantur,] ſeconded by Chryſoſtome and other Fathers, is a trite, but evident teſtimony.
XIV. That Presbyters had the Power of Excommunications ſee fully proved by Calderwood, Altar. Damaſc. p. 273.
XV. Baſil's, Anaphora Bibl. Pat. Tom. 6. p. 22. maketh every Church to have Archpresbyters, Presbyters, and Deacons, making the Biſhop to be but the Archpresbyter.