r

-།

nities among you: translate yourselves from see to see: set up some, pull down others. Where it is evident, he speaks not of patriarchs properly so called, but only of some ambitious spirits among the bishops, who turned all things into confusion, and did what they pleased with the preferments of the church. Gregory Nyssen uses the same term for bishops, in his funeral oration upon Meletius, which he made in the council of Constantinople, where he gives all the bishops then in council the title of Xpatriarchs. Behold these patriarchs: all these are the sons of our Jacob; meaning Meletius, whom he calls Jacob for his age, and the rest patriarchs, in allusion to the twelve patriarchs who were Jacob's children. Thus bishops were commonly styled, till such times as the name patriarch became the appropriate title of the most eminent bishops, such as Rome, Constantinople, &c. And even some ages after that, De Marca" observes, that Athalaricus and the rest of the Gothish kings in Italy gave the name of patriarchs to all bishops within their dominions.

Sect. 10. And vicars of Christ

63

It must not here be forgotten, that all bishops anciently were styled also vicars of Christ, and had as much interest in that name as he that has since laid so much claim to the title. The author of the Questions under the name of St. Austin, says expressly, that every bishop is the vicar of God. Cyprian says the same in several of his Epistles," that every bishop is vice Christi, Christ's vicar, or vicegerent. And this is his meaning in that noted passage to Cornelius, where he says," All heresies and schisms take their original from hence, that men do not submit to God's priest, and consider that there ought to be but one bishop in a church at a time, and one judge as the vicar of Christ. This is spoken of every individual bishop throughout the world, as Rigaltius freely owns; and they grossly mistake Cyprian's meaning, and abuse his authority, who apply it only to the bishop of Rome. St. Basil extends the title to all bishops; and so does the author under the name of St. Ambrose," who is supposed to be Hilary, a deacon of the church of

Rome; which would have been an unpardonable oversight in him, had it not been then the custom of the world to give all others this title as well as the bishop of Rome.

Sect. 11.

churches.

I shall but take notice of one title more given to bishops, which is that And angels of the of angels of the churches; a name which some authors" suppose to be used by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 10, where he says, women ought to be covered in the church because of the angels; that is, bishops, says Hilary the deacon, in the place last mentioned. And so the same author understands that of St. John, Rev. i. 20, "the seven stars are the angels" of the seven churches." Which is also the interpretation of St. Austin" and Epiphanius," who say, that by angels we are not there to understand the celestial angels, (as Origen thought, who assigns a guardian angel" to every church,) but the bishops or governors of those seven churches. Hence, in after ages, bishops were called angels of the churches as Socrates" terms Serapion, who was bishop of Thmuis, the angel of the church of Thmuis: and the author of the Short Notes" upon Timothy, under the name of St. Jerom, says of every bishop, that he is the angel of God Almighty. In this sense Dr. Hammond" observes out of a Saxon MS., that in our own language anciently bishops were called God's bydels, that is, messengers or officers, as he explains it from Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, in the word bedellus. And thus much of those ancient titles of honour, which were given to all bishops indifferently in the primitive church.

70 Ambr. Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 10. Episcopus personam habet Christi.-Vicarius Domini est, &c. The author of the Constitutions, lib. 2. c. 26, styles the bishop Oɛov ἐπίγειον.

Ambrosiaster, ibid. Angelos episcopos dicit, sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Joannis.

72 Pseudo-Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. 10.

73 Aug. Ep. 162. Divina voce laudatur sub angeli nomine præpositus ecclesiæ.

74 Epiph. Hær. 25. Nicolait.

75 Orig. Hom. 20. in Num. t. 1. p. 251. So also Andreas Cæsariens. "Ayyɛλoι púλakes. Com. in Apoc. 1. 20. 76 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 23.

77 Hieron. Com. in 1 Tim. iii.

78 Ham. Annot. on Rev. i. 20.

bishops and presbyters in the dis

and function.

to do justice to antiquity, it is necescharge of their office sary for me to observe a threefold distinction between bishops and presbyters in the discharge of ecclesiastical offices. For, 1st, In the common offices, which were ordinarily intrusted in the hands of presbyters, such as preaching, baptizing, administering the eucharist, &c., there was this obvious difference betwixt a bishop and a presbyter, that the one acted by an absolute and independent power; the other, in dependence upon, and subordination to his bishop, by whose authority and directions, under God, he was to be governed, and do nothing without his consent, or against it so that though there was no difference in the things that were done, yet there was an essential difference in the power of doing them. This is an observation not commonly made, but it is of very great use, both for establishing the just bounds of episcopal and presbyterial power, and clearing the practice of the primitive church. 2dly, Some offices were never intrusted in the hands of presbyters, nor allowed, if performed by them, such as the ordination of bishops, presbyters, &c. 3dly, Bishops always retained the power of calling their presbyters to an account, and censuring them for their misdemeanours in the discharge of their office; which presbyters could not do by their bishop, being always subject and subordinate to him as their superior. These things cleared and set in a fair light, will give us a just account of the office of a bishop, as distinct from that of a presbyter, in the primitive church.

Sect. 2.

1. In the common offices which might be performed by both, the bishop acted by an inde

pendent power, but

presbyters in de

pendence upon, and

subordination to

him.

First, then, we are to observe, that in such ordinary and common offices as might be performed by both, bishops and presbyters acted by a different power; the bishop was the absolute, independent minister of the church, and did whatever he did by his own authority, solely inherent in himself; but the presbyters were only his assistants, authorized to perform such offices as he intrusted them with, or gave them commission and directions to perform, which they still did by his authority, and in dependence upon, and subordination to him as their superior, and might do nothing against his will, or independent of him. This is clear from many passages in Ignatius, Cy

2

prian, and the canons of the ancient councils, wh all agree in this, that nothing is to be done with the bishop; that is, without his knowledge, with his consent, directions, or approbation. Thus natius,' in his Epistle to the church of Smyrna ; no one perform any ecclesiastical office without bishop. Which he explains both there and e where to mean, without his authority and pern sion. So in the council of Laodicea' it is expres the same way; The presbyters shall do noth without the consent of the bishop. The coun of Arles and Toledo say, without his privity knowledge. And the Apostolical Canons giv reason for all this; Because the bishop is the mar whom the Lord's people are committed, and must give an account of their souls.

6

Sect. 3. This specified the offices of ba

supper.

This rule they particularly apply to the offices of baptism and the Lord's supper. A presbyter might ordinarily tism and the Lo administer both these sacraments; but not against the will of his bishop, or in opposition a contradiction to him, but by his consent and auth ity, in a due subordination to him as his superior. is not lawful, says Ignatius,' either to baptize celebrate the eucharist without the bishop; but th which he allows, is well-pleasing to God. He do not say, that none but a bishop might administ these sacraments, but that none was to do it wit out his allowance and approbation. And that plainly the meaning of Tertullian and St. Jerom when they say, that presbyters and deacons ha no power to baptize, without the command an authority of the bishop or chief priest; and th this is for the honour of the church, and the pr servation of peace and unity. St. Ambrose" asser the same, that though presbyters do baptize, y they derive their authority from their superior.

26

Timothy was a bishop, because the apostle speaks of his power to ordain, bidding him lay hands suddenly on no man. And he adds both there and elsewhere," that the presbytery which ordained Timothy was a synod of bishops, because mere presbyters had no power to ordain a bishop. I might here produce all those canons of the ancient councils, which speak of bishops ordaining, but never of presbyters; which rule was so precisely observed in the primitive church, that Novatian himself would not presume to break it, but sent for three bishops" from the farthest corners of Italy, rather than want a canonical number of bishops to ordain him. I only add that observation of Epiphanius," grounded upon the general practice of the church, that the order of bishops begets fathers to the church, which the order of presbyters cannot do, but only beget sons by the regeneration of baptism.

I know some urge the authority of St. Jerom," to prove that the presbyters of Alexandria ordained their own bishop, from the days of St. Mark to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius; and others think the same words prove that he had no new ordination at all: but they both mistake St. Jerom's meaning, who speaks not of the ordination of the bishop, but of his election; who was chosen by the presbyters out of their own body, and by them placed upon the bishop's throne; which in those days was no more than a token of his election, and was sometimes done by the people; but the ordination came after that, and was always reserved for the provincial bishops to perform, as shall be showed hereafter.

Sect. 6. Ordinations by presbyters disannulled by the church.

But it may be inquired, what was the practice of the church in case any presbyters took upon them to ordain? Were their ordinations allowed to stand good, or not? I answer, they were commonly reversed and disannulled. As in the known case of Ischyras, who was deposed by the synod of Alexandria, because Colluthus, who ordained him, was no more than a presbyter, though pretending to be a bishop: and in the case of those presbyters who were reduced to the quality of laymen by the coun

25 Hom. 13. in 1 Tim. iv. 14. où yàp où πрεOBÚTεPOL ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτόνουν.

26 See Con. Nic. c. 19. Con. Antioch. c. 9. Con. Chalced. c. 2 et 6. Con. Carth. 3. c. 45. Can. Apost. c. l. 27 Cornel. Ep. ad Fabium, ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 28 Epiph. Hær. 75. Aerian.

29 Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. Alexandriæ a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat.

30 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 732. Epist. Cler. Mareot. ibid. p. 781.

31 Con. Sard. can. 20.

32 Con. Hispal. 2. can. 5. Relatum est nobis de quibusdam clericis, quorum dum unus ad presbyterum, duo ad

cil of Sardica," because Eutychianus and Mus who ordained them, were only pretended bish The council of Seville in Spain" went a little ther; they deposed a presbyter and two deac because the bishop only laid his hands upon th whilst a presbyter pronounced the blessing or secration prayer over them. And some other stances might be added of the like nature, w show that then they did not allow bishops so m as to delegate or commission presbyters to ordai their name, but reserved this entirely to the epis pal function.

Some allega

amined.

The common pleas which some urge Sect. 7. to the contrary, derogate nothing from to the contrar the truth of this observation. For whereas it is said, 1. That the chorepiscopi w only presbyters, and yet had power to ordain; t seems to be a plain mistake; for all the chore copi of the ancient church were real bishops, thou subordinate to other bishops; as I shall show m particularly hereafter, when I come to speak their order. 2. It is said, that the city presbyt had power to ordain by the bishop's licence; a that this was established by canon in the council Ancyra." But this is grounded only upon a v ambiguous sense, if not a corrupt reading of th canon. For all the old translators render it mu otherwise, that the city presbyters shall do nothin without the licence and authority of the bishop, any part of the parish or diocese belonging to 1 jurisdiction. Which agrees with what I have cit before out of the council of Laodicea; and sever other canons, which make presbyters depende upon their bishops in the ordinary exercise of the function. (See before, Sect. 2. of this chapter.) A some Greek copies " read it, iv répa wapoiią, whi seems to signify that presbyters shall not officia in another diocese without letters dimissory fro their own bishop.

35

manner as he had done Felicissimus, deacon at Carthage. But now it is certain he did not ordain Novatian, but only was instrumental in procuring three obscure Italian bishops to come and ordain him. And in that sense he might ordain Felicissimus too. But admit it were otherwise, it was only a schismatical act, condemned by Cyprian and the whole church.

4. It is pleaded out of Cassian, that Paphnutius, an Egyptian abbot, ordained one Daniel a presbyter. But if Cassian's words be rightly considered, he says no such thing, but only" that Paphnutius first promoted him to be made a deacon before several of his seniors, and then, intending to make him his successor, he also preferred him to the dignity of a presbyter. Which preference, or promotion, does not at all exclude the bishop's ordination. It may reasonably signify the abbot's choice, which he had power to make; but it cannot so reasonably be interpreted that he ordained him, since this was contrary to the rules and practice of the church. And considering where and when Paphnutius lived, in the midst of Egypt, among a hundred bishops, in the fifth century, it is not likely he would transgress the canons in so plain a case. Therefore I cannot subscribe to a learned man, who says, Nothing is more plain and evident, than that here a presbyter ordained a presbyter, which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus, then bishop of Alexandria, nor any others at that time. I conceive, the contrary was rather evident to them, and therefore they had no reason to pronounce it null, knowing it to be a just and regular ordination.

38

5. I remember but one instance more in ancient church history (for modern instances I wholly pass by) that seems to make any thing for the ordination of presbyters; and that is in the answer given by Pope Leo to a question put to him by Rusticus Narbonensis, whether the ordination of certain persons might stand good, who were only ordained by some pseudo-episcopi, false bishops, who had no legal and canonical right to their places? To this he answers," that if the lawful bishops of those churches gave their consent to their ordination, it might be esteemed valid and allowed; otherwise to be disannulled. But here it is to be considered, that these pseudoepiscopi were in some sense bishops, as being ordained, though illegally, to their places: for they seem to be such as had schismatically intruded

39

Cassian. Collat. 4. c. 1. A beato Paphnutio solitudinis ejusdem presbytero, et quidem cum multis junior esset ætate, ad diaconii est prælatus officium.-- -Optansque sibinet successorem dignissimum providere, superstes eum presbyterii honore provexit.

Stilling. Irenic. par. 2. c. 7. n. 8. p. 380.

Leo, Ep. 92. ad Rustic. c. 1. Si qui autem clerici ab istis pseudo-episcopis in eis ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quæ ad proprios episcopos pertinebant, et ordinatio eorum cum consensu et Jalicio præsidentium facta est, potest rata haberi, &c.

themselves into other men's sees, or at least obtained them by some corrupt and irregular practices. Now, the church did not always rescind and cancel the acts of such bishops, but used a liberty either to reverse and disannul the ordinations made by them, or otherwise to confirm and ratify them, as she saw occasion. Therefore, though the general council" of Constantinople deposed all such as were ordained by Maximus, who had simoniacally intruded himself into Gregory Nazianzen's see at Constantinople; yet the Novatian clergy were admitted by the council of Nice," though ordained by schismatical bishops; and the African councils allowed the ordinations of the Donatist bishops, though they had long continued in schism, and given schismatical orders to others also. Which shows that the primitive church made some difference between orders conferred by schismatical bishops, and those conferred by mere presbyters. I inquire not now into the grounds and reasons of this, but only relate the church's practice. From which upon the whole matter it appears, that this was another difference betwixt bishops and presbyters, that the one had power to ordain, but the other were never authorized or commissioned to do it.

Sect. 8.

between bishop's and presbyters: able to their bi

A third difference

presbyters account

shops, not bishops to their presbyters.

Besides this, there was a third difference between bishops and presbyters in point of jurisdiction: bishops always retained to themselves the power of calling presbyters to an account, and censuring them for their miscarriages in the discharge of their office; but presbyters had no power to censure their bishops, or set up an independent power in opposition to their authority and jurisdiction. When Felicissimus and Augendus set up a separate communion at Carthage against Cyprian, threatening to excommunicate all that communicated with him, Cyprian gave orders to his deputies (being himself then in banishment) to execute first their own sentence upon them, and let them, for their contempt of him and the church," feel the power of excommunication; which was accordingly done by his delegates, as appears from their answer to him." In another place, writing to Rogatian, a bishop who made complaint to Cyprian and the synod, of an unruly deacon, he tells him, it was his singular modesty to refer the case to them, when he might by virtue of his own episcopal authority himself have punished the delinquent ;"

45

Cypr. Ep. 38. al. 41. p. 80. Cum Felicissimus comminatus sit, non communicaturos in monte (al. morte) secum, qui nobis communicarent: accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit; ut absentum a se nobis sciat.