affixed to their order; not " Dominicæ dispositionis veritate," and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes.

the bishop or apostle, to inflict any censures, or take | circumstances concur, yet not necessary, because not cognizance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be "surrogati in locum episcopi absentis," but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by virtue of their ordination, or any commission 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 college of the apostles sometimes: therefore, whatsoever act they did, it was in conjunction with, and subordination to, the bishop and apostles. Now it cannot be denied, both that the apostles were superior 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 ordained the first presbyters, that is, before there were any of capacity to join 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 public acts in conjunction with the apostles, cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their order, they only assisting in subordination, and by dependency.

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 St. Paul was, and Barnabas, for they were two of the prophets reckoned in the church of Antioch, but I do not remember them to be called "presbyters in that place;" to be sure they were not mere presbyters as we now understand the word; as I proved formerly, 3. But in the church of Ephesus there was a college 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 Sanctus posuit vos episcopos:" "In whom the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops."s There must lie the exigence of the argument, and if we can find who is meant by "vos," we shall, I hope, gain the truth. St. Paul sent for the presbyters or elders, to come from Ephesus to Miletus, and to them he spoke. It is true, but that is not all the "vos." For there were present at that sermon Sopater, and Aristarchus, and Secundus, and Gaius, and Timothy, and Tychicus, and Trophimus, and although he sent to Ephesus, as to the metropolis, 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 sense, the Lesser Asia. For so, in the preface of his sermon. St. Paul intimates: "Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons." i 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.

This only by the way: In Jerusalem the presbyters were something more than ordinary, and were not mere presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word. For Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas (úvèpàs ǹyovμévovs, St. Luke calls themd) were of that presbytery. Kai avтоì πро¶ýτaι övтes. They were rulers, and prophets, chief men amongst the brethren, and yet called elders or presbyters, though of apostolical power and authority, öre kaì πрEσẞνTÉрwν εἶχον ἀξίαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, saith Ecumenius. For truth is, that divers of them were ordained apostles with an unlimited 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 mere 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 virtue of their presbyterate, but by their apostolate; or if they were but mere presbyters, yet because it is certain, and proved, and confessed, that the apostles had power to govern the church alone, this their taking mere "presbyteros in partem regiminis," was a voluntary act, and from this example was derived to other churches; and then it is most true, that " presbyteros in communi" episcopus" extend "presbyter ?" Why may not ecclesiam regere," was rather "consuetudine ecclesiæ, quàm Dominicæ dispositionis veritate," to use St. Jerome's own expression; for this is more evident than that bishops do "eminere cæteris," 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 voluntary act of the apostles; and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain, and e In Act. Apost.

d Acts xv.

VOL. II.

↑ Acts xiii.

N

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

presbyter signify one that is verily a bishop, as episcopus signify a mere presbyter? For it is but an ignorant conceit, wherever presbyter is named, to fancy it in the proper and limited sense, and not to do so with episcopus; and when they are joined together, rather to believe it in the limited and present sense of presbyter, than in the proper and present sense of episcopus. So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms. These men sent for h Acts xx. 4.

Acts xx.

i Verse 18.

66

from Ephesus, are called peoẞurepoɩ TÑS ÉKKλŋoias, | not in a distributive, for each of them was not in all "elders" or "presbyters of the church;" but at the circuit of his Asian travels; but this was not Miletus, "Spiritus Sanctus posuit vos episcopos," spoken to Sopater, the Berean, or to Aristarchus, there they are called "bishops" or overseers. So, the Thessalonian, but to Tychicus and Trophimus, that I may as well say here," properly so called who were Asians, it might be addressed. And for bishops," as another may say, here were mere that of verse 25. “Ye all among whom I have gone presbyters." And lest it be objected in prejudice preaching, shall see my face no more; this was of my affirmative, that they could not be bishops directed only to the Asians, for he was never more because they were of Ephesus, there never being to come thither; but Timothy, to be sure, saw him but one bishop in one church; I answer, that in afterwards, for St. Paul sent for him, a little before the apostles' times this was not true. For at Jeru- his death, to Rome, and it will not be supposed he salem there were many at the same time, that had neglected to attend him. So that if there were a episcopal and apostolical authority, and so at Anti- conjunction of bishops and presbyters at his meeting, och as at Jerusalem were James, and Judas, and as most certainly there was, and of evangelists and Silas, and the apostles; and Paul and Barnabas at apostolical men besides, how shall it be known, or Antioch, and at Rome, at the same time, Peter, and indeed with any probability suspected, that clause Paul, and Linus, and Clemens; but yet one of them of verse 28. "Spiritus Sanctus posuit vos episcopos was fixed, and properly the bishop of that place. pascere ecclesiam Dei," does belong to the Ephesine But secondly; All these were not of Ephesus, but presbyters, and not particularly to Timothy, who the elders of all Asia, but some from other coun- was now actually bishop of Ephesus, and to Gaius, tries, as appears verse 4. So that although they and to the other apostolical men, who had, at least, were all bishops, we might easily find distinct dio- episcopal authority, that is, power of founding and cesses for them, without encumbering the church of ordering churches without a fixed and limited juri Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency. Thus far diction. then we are upon even terms; the community of compellations used here, can no more force us to believe them all to be mere presbyters than bishops, in the proper sense.

2. It is very certain, that they were not all mere presbyters at his farewell sermon; for St. Timothy was there, and I proved him to be a bishop by abundant testimony, and many of those which are reckoned, verse 4. were companions of the apostle in his journey; and employed, in mission apostolical, for the founding of churches; and particularly Sopater was there, and he was bishop of Iconium, and Tychicus, of Chalcedon in Bithynia, 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 St. Leo. But without all doubt, here were bishops present as well as presbyters, for, besides the premises, we have a witness beyond exception, the ancient St. Irenæus : "In Mileto enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso, et à reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere," &c.; St. 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, St. 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 pre-existent power.

3. All that St. 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 spoken to all the presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisinage, viz. in a collective sense,

k Ubi supra.

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 oкómovę and ποιμαίνειν, verse 28. bishops" and "feeders;" and then it belongs to the presbyters in conjunction with, and subordination to, the bishops; for to the mere 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 removed. And that so it was, is more than probable; for to be sure, Timothy was now entering and fixing upon his see; and it was consonant to the practice of the apostles, and the exigence of the thing itself, when they were to leave a church, to fix a bishop in it; for why else was a bishop fixed 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 St. 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 danger, in them all, and either St. 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 St. Timothy had sat in Ephesus, and St. Polycarp at Smyrna, many years before St. John writ his revelation.

6. Lastly: That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine presbyters, except a delegate and subordinate, appears beyond all exception, by St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over pres

1 Lib. iii. c. 14.

byters, and ordination in him alone, without the conjunction of any in commission with him, for aught 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 St. Titus came, we are well enough at Crete. If they had, why did St. Paul take it from them, to invest Titus with it? Or if he did not, to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned? For either the 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 subordination to him, they were his inferiors, and he their ordinary judge and governor.

there was no bishop, or in the bishop, when there was any; and yet that the presbyters were joined in the ordering church affairs, I will not deny, to wit, by voluntary assuming them, "in partem 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 mere 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 public regiment of the church, by virtue of their order, or without particular substitution and delegation. For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to mere presbyters, no Divine institution of any power of regiment in the presbytery; no constitution apos

5. One thing more before this be left, must be considered concerning the church of Corinth, for there was power of excommunication in the presby-tolical, that mere presbyters should either alone, or tery when they had no bishop, for they had none of divers years after the founding of the church, and yet St. Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the church.

in conjunction 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 specification of any power that they had so to do; but to churches where colleges of presbyters were resident, bishops were sent by apostolical ordination; not only with power of imposition of hands, but of excommunication, of taking cognizance even of causes and actions of presbyters them

church of Ephesus; and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the apostle to a church, where many presbyters were fixed, as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before

tive jurisdiction, by censures, had been by Divine right in a presbyter, or a whole college of them.

Now then return we to the consideration of St. Jerome's saying: "The church was governed (saith he) 'communi presbyterorum consilio,' by the common council of presbyters." But,

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 Corinthian incest, the apostle did make himself the sole judge: "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already;"mselves, as to Titus, and Timothy, the angel of the and then, secondly, St. 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," that is, "my power, my authority," for so he ex-specified, which delegation was needless, if coerciplains himself, "my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver him over to Satan." And thirdly, as all this power is delegate, so it is but declarative in the Corinthians; for St. Paul had given sentence before, and they of Corinth were to publish it. Fourthly; 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 independent presbytery, nor a conjunctive popularity. As for St. 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 verse 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 is 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 66 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 Corinth, (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 m 1 Cor. v. 3.

* Verse 4.

1. " Quo jure" was this? That the bishops are superior to those which were then called presbyters, by custom rather than Divine disposition, St. Jerome affirms; but that presbyters were joined with the apostles and bishops at first, by what right was that? Was not that also by custom and condescension, rather than by Divine disposition? St. Jerome 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 superadded, as Barnabas, and Judas, and Silas, for they had the authority and power of bishops, and an unlimited diocess besides, though afterwards Silas was fixed upon the see of Corinth. But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a bishop, who was in that place superior to them in jurisdiction, and, therefore, does clearly evince, that the common council of presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a bishop over them.

3. "Communi presbyterorum consilio" is also | consilium," they " may delegate jurisdiction to the true, because the apostles called themselves presby-presbyters;" and that they did not so, but kept the ters, as St. Paul and St. John, in their epistles. exercise of it only in their own hands in St. JeNow at the first, many prophets, many elders, (for rome's time, this is it, which he saith is rather by the words are sometimes used in common,) were, for custom than by Divine dispensation, for it was a while, resident in particular churches, and did otherwise at first, viz. de facto," and might be so govern in common; as at Antioch were Barnabas, still, there being no law of God against the delegaand Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaën, and Paul, tion of power episcopal. As for the last words in "communi horum presbyterorum consilio" the the objection, "Et in communi debere ecclesiam church of Antioch for a time was governed; for all regere," it is an assumentum of St. Jerome's own; these were presbyters, in the sense that St. Peter for all his former discourse was of the identity of and St. John were, and the elders of the church of names, and common regiment "de facto," not "de Jerusalem. 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.

4. Suppose this had been true in the sense 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 intimation of Scripture, nor by affirmation of St. Jerome, it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of St. Ambrose; Postquàm omnibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est quam cœperat."o 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 St. Paul had the supravision of them, and St. John, and other of the apostles; but yet afterwards St. 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 constituting of a bishop, had intrusted the care of the church with presbyters, yet it was but independence 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. Oi TρEσCUTEρOL ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον, ἕως ἀναδείξῃ ὁ Θεὸς | Tòv μéλorra äрxε vμor. So St. Ignatius, being absent from his church, upon a business of being persecuted, he wrote to his presbyters, "Do you feed the flock amongst you, till God shall show you who shall be your ruler," viz. "my successor: no longer: your commission expires when a bishop comes."

5. To the conclusion of St. Jerome's discourse, viz. "That bishops are not greater than presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition;" I answer, that this is true in this sense, bishops are not, by Divine disposition, greater than all those which, in Scripture, are called presbyters, such as were the elders in the council at Jerusalem, such as were they of Antioch, such as St. Peter and St. John, σvμπρεσßúTɛpoɩ all, and yet all of them were not bishops in the present sense, that is, of a fixed and particular diocess and jurisdiction.

And indeed, to do him right, he so explains himself: "Et in communi debere ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cùm haberet in potestate solus præesse 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 ruled alone, yet was content to take others to him, and himself only to rule in chief." Thus St. Jerome 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. For the arguments which St. Jerome uses to prove this intention, whatever it is, I have, and shall elsewhere produce, for they yield many other considerations than this collection of St. Jerome, 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 St. Chrysostom: it is needless to repeat either the objection

or answer.

But however, this saying of St. Jerome, and the parallel of St. 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 senses above explicated, and then they are impertinent, or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and catholic antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches.

I end this argument of tradition apostolical with that saying of St. Jerome in the same place; "Postquam unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse, non Christi, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephæ, in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ut schismatum semina tollerentur."

χειροτονίαν μόνην αὐτῶν ἀναβεβήκασι, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοὺς πρέσβυτέρους. Homil. 11.