Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 13

Review and Examination of the Doctrine · Part 1 · Chapter 13

p. 223CHAP. XIII.

The difference betwixt our present Prelacy and the Ancient Episcopacy stated and evinced in 12. Instances. Hence all the Informers pleadings from Antiquity for our Prelats, is found a beating of the Aire and impertinent.

ALthough this Informer would make the world believe, that our Prelacy is nothing discrepant from that of the ancient Bishops, yet there are many remarkable differences betwixt the one and the other, which renders all his pretences from antiquity meer words and winde.

1. In general its clear from a great consent of the learned, that the Bishop who first came in after the Apostolick age was nothing but Episcopus preses or Moderator, and had no power of ordination and Iurisdiction above Presbyters. This Moderator fixedly set up durante vita, during life; And Indued with a higher honour upon this ground, is Beza's Episcopus humanus, or human Bishop, whom he distinguishes from the divine Bishop of Gods appointment. Ambrose in his time, acknowledges [on 1 Tim. 3.] [That Bishops and Presbyters had the same essentiall office and ordination.] p. 224Dr Reynolds, in his conference with Hart, proves, that at first the Moderator or president among Ministers in their meetings, is he whom the Ancients in after times called Bishop. So he holds that the Bishop at his first rise was only the foreign or Moderator of the Presbytery. Blondel at large mantains the same, only he holds that the next in degree succeeded him when dead. Hence Musculus after he hath from the texts alledged by Jerome, proved that Bishop and Presbyter are all one▪ adds That thereafter Ambition begetting strifes about precedencie, one was set up to be Moderator in a fixed orb. And least our Informer or any else alleadge, that prelacy therefore is necessary to prevent Schisme. This eminent light of the reformed Church adds. but whither that device of man profited the Church or no, the times after could better judge, and that the effects issueing upon it, dicovered, that it was not the Spirit of God his remedy to take away Schisme, but Satans project to destroy a faithfull Ministery. The same saith Sadael viz, that this difference betwixt Bishops and Ministers which was introduced to remedie Schisme, opened a gap to ambition. So Dr Whittaker haveing out of Jerome shewed [That faction occasioned the change of the Ancient Apostolick parity among Ministers,]—adds—That many wise and godly men have judged the change and remedy more pernicious then the disease it self, which though at first it did not appear, yet experience after proved that it brought the Antichristian yoake upon the neck of the Church. See the appendix to jus▪ divin. Minist. Evangel. In which Testimonies of these great men we may observe two things. 1. That they admitt the first Bishops to have been nothing else but fixed Moderators. 2: That even this much they doe p. 225condemne as a deviation from the first appointment, and as that which gave a rise to the Antichristian Tyranny. Now the difference and disproportion betwixt this fixed Moderator, and our present diocesian erastian prelat, is so plaine and obvious, that nothing further needs be said to clear it. Therefore his Argument from the Catalogues and those early first Bishops who tooke place in the Church, is pitifully claudicant as to a conclusion of the ancient Churches approbation of our Prelats.

To clear it further, its evident (if we lay weight upon the Judgement of the ancient Bishopes themselves in point of Church Government) that 1, They held not their consecration or ordination to be distinct from that of Presbyters, Episcopi & Presbyteri una & eadem est ordinatio. [That the Bishop and Presbyter have one and the same ordination,] we heard is Ambrose assertion.

2. No delegation of externall jurisdiction to Presbyters was acknowledged by the ancients. As it is by our new hierachical pleaders. The Prelatists hold that the Bishop is properly the [Pastour of the whole diocess,] and that all the Ministers thereof have but a derived precarius Ministry under him▪ so D…wn. (defens. lib, 2. c. 4. p. 67.) Field. (of the Church 56. c. 27) Sarav. (de trip. epis. p, 87.) Spala…. l. 2. c. 9 Num. 15. and yet Ambrose [on 1 Tim. 5▪ And Chrisostom [Hom. 17 on Matthew] calleth Presbyters expresly Christi vicarios, Christs vicars. Cyprian. [lib. 4. Epist. 8.] sayes, Dominum sacerd…tes in sua ecclesia—&c. That the Lord condescended to elect & constitut to himself Priests in his Church. 3. The Ancients held that the power of externall jurisdiction was common with Bishops and Presbyters. Ignatius (in his Epistle to the Trallians,) Calls the Presbyters senatum Dei, Gods Court, or Senat. Et non consiliarios solum, sed & assessores p. 226Episcopi. not Councellours only (as are our Curats, and scarse that) but the Bishops assessors. Irenaeus. (lib. 4. Cap: 44.) Calls them Principes, Princes or Chieff. Augustin. (Serm: 86.) Calls the Brethren ineremo, Patronos rectores terrae, Patrones and Rectors of the Earth. Chrisostom expressly shews (on 1. Tim. 1, Hom: 11.) Ecclesijs praesidisse sicut Episcopi, &c: That they presided over the Churches as the Bishops, and receaved together with them the office of teaching and governing the Church.

The homily begines thus, postquam de Episcopis dixit, eosque formavit, quidnam illos habere conveniat, a quo item abstinere necesse sit dictans, ommisso interim Presbyterorum ordine ad diaconos transiit. Cur id quaeso? quia scilicet inter Episcopum atque Presbyterum interest ferme nihil. quippe & Presbyteris Ecclesiae cura permissa est: & quae de Episcopis dixit, …ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt: that is, after he hath spoken of Bishopes and formed them, injoyning what thinges it becomes them to have, and from what it is necessary they should abstain, omitting the mean whil the order of Presbyters, he passes over to deacones. Why so, I pray? even because that betuixt a Bishope and Presbyter there is almost no difference. Because unto Presbyters also the care of the Church is allowed: and what he said before concerning Bishopes, the same thinges also do agree to Presbyters. I know he addes—sola quippe ordinatione superiores illi sunt, atque hoc tantum, plus quam Presbyteri habere videntur. That the Bishopes only in ordination are superiour to Presbyters, according to the latin interpretation followed by Dounam, and Bilson, and by Bellarmin before them. But the more learned interpreters have observed that the greeke will bear a farr other sence, foreign Sola enim suffragatione horum ascenderunt atque hoc solo videntur Presbyteris injuriam facere. that is, that onelyonly by the Presbyters suffrage they have ascended, (viz p. 227to this power) and in this onelyonly they seem to do injury to Presbyters. The learned Iunius (de cleric. cap. 7. not. 611.) tels us that foreign (hic) Presbyterorum non Episcoporum; quod si foreign est ordinatio, ergo Presbyterorum est ordinatio. The hand suffrage, is here the Presbyters. but if it be meaned of ordination, then ordination belonges to them. And having proved this construction & sence of the greeke from Suidas, he shewes that Chrisost. places not the difference in ordination betuixt the Bishop and Presbyter, but in this that the Bishopes ascendunt supra Presbyteros in gradum foreign Doe ascend into there degree of Episcopacy above the Presbyters—although, because they stepp up by their suffrage, they seem to wrong them when they assume any power to themselves, who upon the ground of order, not of power, (saith he) are set over them by there owne suffrag. He also tels Bellarm. (de cleric. ca. 15. not. 29.) That granting his sence of Chrysost. Wordes, yet the Bishop ordained onelyonly signo & sermone declaring the sacred institution or inauguration of the person ordained, but not ordinatione veritatis, or by the true ordination which that signe represented. Some add, that if Chrisost. be thus understood in the sence of Bellarm. and his Episcopal sectators, he did not rightly expound his text, while distinguishing that which he acknowledges the Apostle makes one & the… same▪ Ierome tels us of their common Government of the Churches together with the Bishops; from whom Gratian (in decretis caus. 16. Quest. 1 cap.) shewes that Ecclesia habet senatum Presbyterorum &c: That the Church hath a senat of Presbyters without whose counsel the Bishop can doe nothing.

2. We heard that these Ancient Bishops were sett up by the Presbyters as their fixed Moderator and had all their Episcopall power from their free choice and election. And that any prerogative which they had over Presbyters, they ascribe it to Custom, and to the Presbyters p. 228own choic, consuetudini., non dominicae dispositionis veritati, to Custom not the truth of divine appointment, as Ierome speakes. Irenaeus, (who lived ann. 180; lib 4. cap. 43) tells us that we must adher to those Presbyters, qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis acceperunt.—Who have succession from the Apostles, and together with the succession of Episcopacy have the gift of verity. Ambrose (in cap 4. Ephes.) affirmes that—non per omnia conveniunt &c.—[the government in his time agreed not in al points with scripture] he means it of any excrescent power which the Bishop then had above Presbyters. And Augustine ascribes al his difference from Ierom (who was a Presbyter) unto Ecclesiae usus, the Churches Custome, and grantes that in this onelyonly Episcopatus Presbyterio major est, the Episcopacy is greater then the Presbyterat. (Tom. 2. operum. Epist. 19. ad Hieron) And Ierome holds (in his Epistle to Evagrius) Primatum hunc Episcoporum Alexandriae Primum caepisse &c. That this primacy of Bishops began first at Alexandria, and, post-mortem Marcae Evangelistae—after the death of mark the Evangelist. And thus gives the lie to our Informer who would make us believe that it came from Markes personal practise and appointment while a live. he tels us also that it was [paulatim] & by …ent degrees, that omnis sollicitudo ad unum delata, The episcopall care was put upon on. Sozom. (lib. 1. cap. 15.) calls it civitatis consuetudinem a custome wh…ch prevailed with other cites▪ 'tis remarkable, that by Ephiphanius confession (Haeres 87.) non habuit Alexandrie duos episcopos ut aliae urbes. Alexandria had not two Bishopes as other cities. But the Informer wil not dare to say, that our Prelats now have their power by Presbyters election as these ancient Bishopes

3. It is also clear, that in these first times when the Episcopus▪ praeses was set up, and for some ages afterward, not only the Presbyters but the people also had a p. 229great interest in their choice. Cyprian (epist. 68.—) speaking of the choice of Bishops sayes That pleb… maxime habet potestatem, the people have mainely a power—and that [plebe presente,] that is in the peoples presence, they were set up: Which he sayes was a power they had descending upon them de divina auctoritate▪ that is, from the divine Authority. And this had the approbation of ane African Synod consulted by the Churches of Spaine as to Election. Athanas: (epist. ad Orthodox.) condemned the comeing in of a Bishop without the peoples consent as a breach not only of ane [Ecclesiastick constitution,] but ane [Apostolick precept.] See Smect: (page 26.) proveing this at large that Bishops were elected by the people. Cyprian. (lib. 1. Epist. 4. nomine Synodi africanae) videmus, de divina authoritate descendere ut sacer▪ dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis deligatur &c. [That the Priest was chosen under the eyes of all the people being present, and approved as fitt and worthy by a publick Testimony.] This (he sayes) we see descends from divine Authoritie, & (ibid) diligenter de traditione divina & Apostolica traditione tenendum est quod apud nos fere & per provincias universas tenetur ut episcopus deligatar plebi cui ordinatur presente &c. [That it was to to be held from the divine and apostolick tradition, as almost through all provinces it was observed, that that the Bishop was chosen in the peoples presence over whom he] was ordained &c.] He testifies that thus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome (lib. 4 epist. 2.) Grat. (dist. 62. Can) nulla ratio fuit ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clero sunt electi, nec a plebibus sunt expetiti. No reason permitts that they should be holden Bishops, who are neither chosen by the clergy nor desired by the people.] So Ambrose was chosen by the citticens of Millan, Flavianus by those of Antioch, Chrisostom, by the Constantin…politans. This Custome was so rooted, that when Emperors afterward obtruded p. 230Bishops without the previus election of the clergie and people, the most famous Bishops much stomached it. Ubi ille Canon, (saith Athanasius Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes) ut a pallatio mittatur is qui futurus est Episcopus. Where is that canon, That he who is to be Bishop, should be sent from the court? Let our court prelats mark this: And our curats answere this quere. Now I hope our Informer will not alledge that the people have any the least Interest in the choise of our Prelats, so that they are but novell & none of the ancient Bishops in this point.

4. Non of the first Bishops could ordaine alone. This is beyond debate as to the first [Episcopus preses.] But even in after times also when Bishops power was farther advanced they could not thus ordaine.

That their power of ordination was not singular appeares from the 4th Councel of Carthage (Can. 22) which decrees that the Bishopes ordain not without the Clergy; and [Can. 3.] they are not to impose handes without them.

The Presbyters in Cyprians time had the power bartisandi, of baptizing, manum imponendi, or of laying on hands, & ordinandi, that is, of ordaining. (epist. 78.) and in Egypt, in absence of the Bishop they ordained alone. see Smect. (p. 27.) upon this ground Ambrose said, that betwixt the Bishop and presbyter there is almost no difference. Now have not our prelats power to ordaine alone? and have they not de facto frequently done so? so that upon this account also they are new minted Gentlemen.

5. The power and Government of the ancient Bishops in Church judicatories was [not sole and singular,] as that of our prelats, [nor did they invad or inhanse their decisive conclusive suffrage] as they doe, who are Princes in all the present Church meetinges which must only give them advice, and not that, unless p. 231this high priest judge them of known loyaltie and prudence, and may doe with their advice what he pleases. Wheras Cyprian (Epist. 6. and 28) professes that he neither could nor would doe any thing without the Clergie. And the 4…. councill of carthage condemnes the Bishops decision unless fortified by the sentence of the Clergie (Can. 23.) where was the negative voice here? see Ruffin. hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Smectim. proves from Canons of ancient Councills & the Fathers, That neither 1. In censuring presbyters. Nor 2. In judgeing of the conversation or crimes of Church members. Nor 3. In excommunication, nor receaving of penitents, Bishops could doe any thing without presbyters. And that there was no delegation of their power. Downam himself confesses in reference to Ambrose time, and long after it. So that for 400 Years our prelats present Prince like power was not known in the Church. The ancient Bishops made themselves sole in no pointe of ecclesiastick disciplin as our prelats, who have excommunicat alone. Tertull. (Apoleget.) shews that the exhortations, castigations, and censuradivina, the divine censure among which he takes in excommunication, were performed by the probati quique seniores, all the approved elders. Befor him Iraenus [haeres: lib: 4 cap. 44.] Will have these Presbyters obeyed. Qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, have succession from the Apostles—And that ad correctionem aliorum, for censure of others as well as for sound doctrine. Basilius magnus Archiepisc. Caesariens. affirms, that jus ligendi & solvendi foreign ex aequo, omnibus pastoribus & doctoribus &c. That the power of binding and lowsing is equally and together given by Christ to all Pastours and Doctors. Which even Lombard denieth not [sentent. lib 4. dist. 19.] It is also demonstrated p. 232that elaborat piece that the oath ex officio is a Monster to Antiquity.

6. Our Prelats Civil & State offices are also a Monster to pure antiquity, as they are Cro…se to our Churches Authority; who in her general assemblie hath condemned this. (Assemb: 38. sess: 25.) The forsaid author proves this also at large, to whom we refer the Reader, So that our Informer must acknowledge that our Prelats in this point also are different from the Ancients.

Whosoever shal peruse the Canones called Apostolick, and of ancient councels, will find Bishopes medling in state-affairs, and especialy their holding of state offices, so harmoniusly condemned, that its a wonder that any who pretends to the knowledge of antiquity, and to plead for prelacy upon this ground, should have the considenc to justify it.

The 6. canon of those called Apostolick passes the sentence of deposition upon bishops who assume secular imployments. [Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus seculares curas ne suscipiat, alioqui deponatur.] Balsamon upon this canon, referrs us to 13. cap. 8. Tit. Where there is exhibit a full collection of canons to this purpose. The 81 canon. diximus non oportere Episcopum vel Presbyterum seipsum ad publicas administrationes demittere, sed in Ecclesiasticis negotiis versari. Vel ergo ita facere persuadeatur, vel depon…tur. That is, we have appointed that a Bishop or Presbyter must not stoop to, or debase himself with publick (that is, civil) administrationes or offices, let him therfor be either perswaded so to do, or let him be deposed. …alsamon upon this canon, observing that it lenifies the first, referrs to XVI Canon Carth. Syn.

Again Canon 83. runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, vel diaconus, exercitui vacans; & utraque obtinere volens, remanum scilicet magistratum, & Sacerdotalem administrationem, p. 233deponatur, quae sunt enim caesaris, Caesari, & quae sunt Dei, Deo. That is a …ishop or Presbyter or deacon who bears office in an arm…, and will needs hold both offices, to wit the Roman magistracy, and the sacerdotal administration or ministry, let him be deposed; for …uch things as belong to Caesar must be rendred to Caesar, and the things that are Gods unto God. Balsamon upon this canon referrs us to VII. Can. chalced. syn.—tales (saith he) anathemate ferientem si non penitentiam agant— Which strickes them with [anathema] (the last extremest curse or ex communication.) who assume military imployments and repent not. And having moved ane objection, whether the formentioned clause [cesset vel deponatur, let him leave off this office, or let him be deposed.] is here also to be understood, he tels us in the close of his answer, that omnia publica eandem rationem habent, that al publick civil offices fals under the same consideration as thus discharged. And begins his gloss upon this canon thu…, diversi canones Apostolici prohibuerunt sacris initiatos publica negotia administrare. That is, diverse Apostolick canones have forbidden such as are entred into sacred functiones to handle or administer publick (or civil) affaires. In the beginning of his gloss upon the 6 canon, he represents thus the crime of church officers holding of civil places which is censured therin▪ De hominibus consecratis qui seculares servitutes exercent &c: concerning men consecrat to god who exercise wordly slaveries.—such a Character do the Canons put upon our Prelates state offices. That VII. Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon puts the formentioned censur upon such as—[secularia negotia exercent divinum ministerium negligentes]—who manadge wordly places and offices neglecting the divin ministry.

p. 234The XVI. Canon of the second Council of Nice forbidding Bishops or presbyters to be foreign, actores or procurators, doth it upon this ground.—debent enim ad id quod scripium est respicere nemo Deo militans seipsum implicat secularibus negotiis. For they ought to take heed to that which is written no man warring for god, or who is his souldier should involve himself in secular affaires, see Balsamon, comment. in Canon. Apost. concil. & patrum, & in Photii nomo can pag. (mihi) 39: 108, 127, 178, 167, 319. Whenc we may collect. 1. how constant and sever the ancients were in their censour of this guilt 2. That they held this to be a debasing of the holy ministry, to which the pastor or Bishop most give himself 3. That upon the ground of that gospel precept (2. tim. 2: 4.) No man that warreth, intangleth himself With the affaires of this life, and that other ground of giving Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods, they do condemne, not military imployments only, in a Pastor or Bishop or taking farms (as our Informer would make us believe) but also also all secular and civil offices without exception. 4. That they held the sacred function of the ministry to be utterly inconsistant with publick civil imployments. And the civil office of a state-ruler incompatible with the ministerial office, in one and the same persone; since they are opposed & contradistinguished as thus inconsistant, in the forementioned Canones and the grounds thereof. So that there is not a shaddow of defence for prelates state offices. Whil these Canones do sit in judgement, especialy the scripture grounds hinted therein, and many others which have been adduced.

7. What ever generall expressions of the ancients he may plead, yet is it not certain, that in the first pure ages even after the [Episcopus humanus,] and the fixed presidents were set up, the archbishops, primats, metropolitanes, p. 235were Monsters and unknowne, yea even the diocesian mould and cast of Churches, let any peruse Mr Bains, his diocesians tryall tryall against Downam, and this will be convincingly clear.

8. Where will the Informer shew us our erastian prelacy in all his antiquity? A prel…y deryoing all its power both of ordination and Jurisdiction absolutly from the civill Magistrat, having no intrinsick spirituall authority, and in all its administeration, acting by way of deputation and commission from the Magistrat as accountable to him in every piece thereof immediatly and solely as other inferiour civil Governours. Dar he say that these Bishops in the first ages exercised not ane inherent Ecclesiastick spiritual power, distinct from and independant upon the Magistrat? Was all their meetings and all matters cognoscible in them, given up to be, pro libitu, disposed of by any Prince or potentat whither heathen or Christian? Did not all Ministers and Bishops of these times exercise ane Ecclesiastick independant authority, as being totally distinct from, and not a part of the civill Government? Was ever there Erastian Government heard of in the Christian World till Thomas Erastus of Heidleberge brotched it? And hath it not since that time been Impugned by the most famous lights of the reformed Churches as contrary to the Rules of the Gospell Church Government? So that our Informer must acknowledge the present Ecclesiasticocivil, or linsy-wolsy-Prelacy to be a speckled bird of new fashioned coloures, never before seen, to which he will not find a paralleel among all the Fathers or Bishops of former ages.

9. Let me add, how will our Informer make it appear That in the first purer ages, any of the ancient Bishops did deny & wholly exclud [ruling elders] from Church Iudieatories. We have proved this officer to be juris p. 236divini from Scripture. And the full consent of Antiquity, & also of reformed divines is abundantlie clear, & exhibit by many of the learned for the divine right of this officer. Ambrose is brought in compleaning of the disuse of these officers (on 1 Tim. 5.) As a devation from the Scripture-patern, & proceeding from the pride & negligence of Doctors. Origin. his Testimonie (lib: 3. contr: Celsum) is remarkable, who shewes that among the more polite hearers who were above the Catechumenists foreign, &c. Non nulli praepositi sunt qui in vitam & mores eorem qui admittuntur, inquirunt, ut qui turpia committunt, eos communi caetu interdicant, qui vero ab istis abborrent. ex animo complext meliores quotidie reddant. There are some set over the rest who inquires into the life and manners of those who are admitted, that such as committ these things that are vile, they may discharge them from the publick assembly, and embracing from their heart such as are farr from these things, they may render them every day better. Here are censurers of manners found in the ancient Church, though not Ministers, and designed and constitut to their work with authority in their hand to interdict the scandalous, and what are these but ruling elders? So Augustin (Epist. 137.) writeing to his Charge directs it thus dilectis sratrbus, clero, Senioribus, & universae plebi Eccle…ae hippo ensis, To the beloved brethren, the Clergie, the elders, and the wholl people of the Church of Hippo. So (Contr. Crese. Gramattic.) omnes vos. Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, & Siniores Scitis. All you' Bishops Presbyters, deacons and elders, doe know. Here are Tuo sorts of elders mentioned in one comma, who can be nothing else but ruling elders. For the same purpose, the learned in handling this theam, doe cite Barronius (Ann: 103.) Where he enumerats Episcopi, Presbyteri, diaconi, Seniores. Bishops, p. 237Presbyters, Deacons, Elders. So also Tertullian (Apolleget. adversus gentes c. 39.) Cyprian (Epist. 39.) (Optatus (lib. 1. p. 41.) and many others. See assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland. Christoph. justell. observ. & not. in Cod. Can. Eccles. affric. p. 110, 111. jus divinum Regim. Eccles. Smectim. &c:

10. The Ancient Bishops were not set over whole provinces, but city by city for most part, yea severall Cities had more, which sayes they were not at all Bishops properly. Clemens (in Constit. l. 7. c. 46.) shews that Evodius and Ignatius had at once the Episcopacy over the Church of Antioch, and what was this but a meer Collegiat Ministery. Council. African (Cap. 21.) appoints that to examine the cause of a Presbyter, sex Episcopl ex vicinis locis adjungerentur, 6 Bishops from neighbouring places be adjoyned. Poor dorps had their Bishops as is clear in History. Nazianzon, a little towne neer Caesarea, yet was all the Episcopall See of Gregory Nazianzen. In Chrysostoms time, the diocess contained but one citie. Homil. 3. (in acta) nonne terr arum orbis imperium tenet imperator &c. [doth not the Emperour (saith he) Govern the World, but this man is a Bishop only of one city.] Sozom. (Hist. Bcclesiast. lib. 7. cap. 19.) Tells us that he found with the Arabians and those of Cyprus, Bishops in little Dorps.

11. The Ancient Bishops placed [preaching] among the chief partes of their office, and were not idle drones as ours are? Theophilact. on 1 Tim. 3. tells us that docendi officium omnium precipue ut insit episcopis est necesse, that the office of preaching, which is the chieff of all others, its necessarie that the Bishop be indewed with it.

As ours Court-prelats, so our non-preaching Prelats, are strangers unto, and condemned by the ancient Canons. Photii Nomocan. tit. 8. cap p. 23812. [de Episcopis, qui non convertunt haereticos, & de Episcopis & clericis qui non docent populum.] he presents and digests the Canons against Bishops and clergy men who convert not haeretiks, and teach not the people. some of these Canones are as followes.

The 58. canon of those called [Apostolick], runes thus, Episcopus vel Presbyter, qui cleri vel populi curam non gerit, & eos piet atem non docet segregetur: & si in socordia perseveret, deponatur. The Bishop or Presbyter who takes no care of the people or clergy and teaches them not piety, let him be set aside: and if he continue in his folly let him be deposed. Balsamon upon this Canon, tells us that, Episcopalis dignitas in docendo consistit, & omnis Episcopus debet docere populum pia dogmata &c: The Episcopal dignity consists in teaching, and every Bishop ought to teach the people holy statutes for the Bishop is for this end established to attend the people &c: therafter he shewes that the presbyters ought to be so imployed, quia etiam prope Episcopos sedent in superioribus cathedris, [because they sit beside the Bishops in the higher seats] they were not then the prelats underlinges as our curats are now; hence he concludes that the Bishop or priest who neglected this duety, were to be set aside, and if continuing, to be deposed.

The 36. of these Canons puts this censour upon the Bishop who neglects this duty, Si quis ordinatus Episcopus non suscipiat ministerium & curam sibi commissam sit segregatus &c: That the ordained Bishop shal be set asid sured who goes not about his ministry and the duty intrusted to him &c. Balsamon expoundes this part of the Canon, and summes it up thus. Decernit itaque praesens Canon, ut si quis Episcopus, vel Presbyter ad docendum pertinentem manuum impositionem acceperit, & suum munus non implea, segregetur. The present Canon discerns that if any Bishop or Presbyter hath p. 239received imposition of hands relating to teaching, and fulfilles not his office, that he be set aside &c. Where its evident that he makes the Bishops ordination, or imposition of hands, relative unto the great duety and office of preaching the gospel, aswel as that of the Presbyter, and accordingly expoundes the Canon.

The XXXIX. canon intrusts the Bishop with the Charg of the peoples soules, in correspondence with the preceeding. In the forecited cap: XII. Photii, we are referred to the Syn. Carthag. can. CXXIII. Syn. VI. can. XIX. LXIIII. See also Syn. Sexta in trullo can. XIX. quod opportet eos qui prasunt Ecclesiis, in omnibus quidem diebus, sed praecipue dominicis—docere pietatis & rectae rationis eloquia, ex divina scriptura colligentes intelligentias &c That all such as are set over Churches, on all dayes, but especialy on the Lords dayes most teach the oracles of piety and pure religion, drawing instructions from the divine scriptures &c: Balsamon begins his commentary upon the canon thus, Episcopi Ecclesiarum doctores constituuntur, & propterea dicit canon cis omnino necesse esse, eum cui praesunt populam semper docere, & multo magis in diebus dominicis &c: That is, The Bishops are constitut teachers of the Churches, and therefor the canon sayes unto them, that its absolutely necessary alwayes to teach that people over whom they are set, and much more on the lordes dayes wherin all are almost present in Churches and artificers ceases from ther work &c. So that our non-preaching, or seldom preaching prelates, who by a new consecration (forsooth,) superadded unto their Presbyterial ordination to preach the gospel, get a bill of ease from this great duety, to act state games, except when their Lordships please to step into the pulpit, to supererogat, stands arraighned, stigmatized, and deposed by the ancient Canones, as unworthy of any p. 240office in the house of god. Vide can. Apost. conc general & partic. Sanct. Patr. Photii nomocan. cum Balsam. comment. pag. (mihi) 39: 116, 117, 121, 207.

Unto this account and censure of antiquity, and of the ancient canons, past upon our non-preaching prelates, I wil here subjoyn a remarkable passage of a learled divine whose praise is in all the Churches. Whittaker (de Eccles. contr. 2. cap. 3.) being about to prove that the Church of rome is no true Church of Christ. Presents this for his first argument. Pontifex Romanus non est verus Episcopus: Ergo Ecclesia Romana non est vera Ecclesia. Nam Ecclesia non potestesse sine episcopo. The Pope of Rome is no true Bishop: therefore the Church of Rome is no true Church: because the Church cannot be without a Bishop. But least this last assertion cheer up our Informer and his fellowes, he addes, disputo ex eorum placitis. That he disputs upon his popish adversaries principles; and thus classeth them among the popish party in this point. But how proves he the pope to be no true Bishop—propter praecipuum munus episcopi (saith he) quod in illo desideratur, because of the Chief office of a Bishop whcih is wanting in him. And what is that, olim episcopi Romani diligenter docebant ecclesiam; & nulli facti sunt episcopi nisi qui in hoc munere fideles erant. Olim hoc ad se pertinere, & praecipuum suum munus esse putabant, ut populum sibi commissum docerent atque instituerent; adeo ut monstri simile esset, per Annos post Christum plusquam sexcentos, episcopum aliquem in ecclesia esse, qui aut nollet, aut non posset populum docere. that is, of old the Bishops of Rome diligently taught the Church, and none were made Bishopes who were not faithfull in this office; of old they lookt upon this as the Chief duety incumbent upon them to teach and instruct the people committed to them; so that fore more then six hundred Yeares p. 241after Christ, it would have been lookt upon as a monster, if any such Bishop were in the Church who either was not willing or able to teach the people. He addes, That all the Apostolick Bishopes were such. And that the Apostle requires it in a Bishop that he be foreign, apt to teach 1 Tim. 3: 2. hoc est (saith he) non ejusmodi, qui curet …antum, & det operam, ut alii doceant, & hanc authoritatem docendi aliis tribuat: sed qui ipse sufficiat alios docere. Not such a one who is diligent onelyonly to provid, others to teach, and gives this authority to others, But who is himself sufficient to teach others. This he proves because the Apostle is in that place shewing, how the Bishop most be indued and gifted befor he be chosen, and that therfore by [being apt to teach] we most understand a personal care and ability and not a deputed care, quis enim hoc praestare non posset? (saith he) who is he who may not perform this. This he further cleares from 2. tim. 2. 2. where the Apostle injoyns Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men, qui essent foreign, themselves able to teach others. Reprehending Turrian (and with him our Episcopal men) in interpreting that first passadge of a deputed care as to teaching. And shewes that the old interpreter translates foreign a doctor, or teacher. And a doctor (saith he) is such a one as can teach himself. Thereafter he cites Oecumenius, and Chrysostom thus expounding the premised scripture, and even soom of the popish scoolmen, as Aquinas upon this text, who cals this the proper work and duety of a Prelat. And shewes us that Aquinas pertinently applyes to this purpose that passage, Jer. 3. 15. I wil give Pastors according to my own heart who shal feed yow with knowledge and understanding. And that Cajetan, and Catharinus do thus expound this text. In all which we see with how full a consent of ancient and modern p. 142Churches and divines our non-preaching or seldom preaching Prelates are condemned, and how fully our scripture-argument against them upon this head, is fortified and confirmed.

12. As in other points of difference, so the ancient Bishopes were as farr from our Prelats fastuus pompe, and sumptuus grandeur which they assume. Ammianus Marcellinus (lib. 27. de habitu vitae beatorum episcoporum,) tells us of their tenuitas edendi, potandique parcissime, indumentorum vilitas &c. Their spare eating and drinking, their meanenes of apparrel, their lovely countenance, as that which commendes them to God and his true worshippers. Paulus Samosatenus, his fastuus pompe and attendants, although a great Bishop, is highly condemned, as exposeing our faith to envy and hatred. Euseb. (lib. 7. cap. 29.) The Canon of the 4 Councell of carthage (insert by Gratian in the body of the decree distinct. 41.) provides that, Episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum, vil emsupellectilem, &c. That the Bishop have his little manse not far from the Church that he have meane houshold stuffe &c. Et dignitatis suae Authoritatem fide & meritis quaerat, and purchase Authority to his office or dignity by faith and good works. Sozom. (lib, 6. Cap: 16.) Relats of Basilius Magnus, Bishop of Caesaria, that he answered the Imperours praefect who threatned the Confiscation of his goods, thus, Horum nihil me Cruciari potest, equidem opes non habeo, preterquam laceram vestem, & Paucos libros. None of these things can torment me, truely I have no goods but a torne garment and some books. See the historia motuum [page 143. to 174.]

Now from all that is said, I think common ingenuity will acknowledge; (and this Informer himself, if he be not ane utter stranger to it,) that our present Episcopacy is as far discrepant from that of the Ancient Christian Church, as east from west, and by p. 243consequence that this pleading from the ancient prostasie, or even the after Bishops to legittimat and patronize our present prelacy, is a most gross nonsequitur and notorius fallacy.