founded. So Eusebius. For the bishop was inì nãσi nabeσràs, set over all," clergy and laity, saith St. Clement. This was given to bishops by the apostles themselves, and this was not given to presbyters, as I have already proved; and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this, that bishops had power over presbyters, which cannot be supposed they had over themselves, unless they could be their own superiors. 66 SECTION XXI. Not lessened by the Assistance and Counsel of Presbyters. BUT a council, or college of presbyters, might have jurisdiction over any one, and such colleges there were in the apostles' times, and they did "in communi ecclesiam regere," govern the church in common with the bishop;" as saith St. Jerome, viz. where there was a bishop; and where there was none, they ruled without him. This indeed will call us to a new account; and it relies upon the testimony of St. Jerome, which I will set down here, that we may leave the sun without a cloud. St. Jerome's words are these: "Idem est enim presbyter quod episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis, 'Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego autem Cephæ,' communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesiæ gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat, suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ut schismatum semina tollerentur." Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying, and sums them up thus: "Hæc diximus, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos episcopos, et ut episcopi noverint se magis ecclesiæ consuetudine quàm Dominicæ dispositionis veritate presbyteris esse majores: et in communi debere ecclesiam regere," &c. The thing St. Jerome aims to prove, is the identity of VOL. VII. b Ubi supra, apud Euseb. lib. iii. c. 23. H common. bishop, presbyter, and their government of the church in For their identity, it is clear that St. Jerome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a bishop and a presbyter had both one office per omnia,' one power; for else he contradicts himself most apertly; for, in his epistle ad Evagrium, "Quid facit," saith he, "episcopus acceptâ ordinatione quod presbyter non facit?" "A presbyter may not ordain, a bishop does;" which is a clear difference of power, and by St. Jerome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right, " quod presbyter non faciat," not "non facit;" that a priest may not, must not, do that a bishop does, viz. he gives holy orders. And for matter of fact, St. Jerome knew that in his time a presbyter did not govern in common; but, because he conceived it was fit he should be joined in the common regiment and care of the diocese, therefore he asserted it as much as he could; and therefore, if St. Jerome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary, and by actual indulgence, or encroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original right, St. Jerome was not so diffident but out it should come, what would have come. And suppose St. Jerome, in this distinct power of ordination, had intended it only to be a difference in fact, not in right, (for so some of late have muttered,) then St. Jerome had not said true according to his own principles, for " Quid facit episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod presbyter non faciat?" had been quickly answered, if the question had only been de facto;' for the bishop governed the church alone, and so in jurisdiction was greater than presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact at least, St. Jerome says it, and the bishop took so much power to himself, that 'de facto' presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis episcopalibus,' 'without leave of the bishop;' and this St. Jerome complained of; so that de facto' the power of ordination was not the only difference. That, then, (if St. Jerome says true,) being the only difference between presbyter and bishop, must be meant de jure,' in matter of right, not human positive,' (for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction, which, de facto,' and at least by a human right, the bishop 6 6 Ad Nepotian. et de 7. Ordin. Eccles. had over presbyters,) but divine;' and then this identity of bishop and presbyter, by St. Jerome's own confession, cannot be meant in respect of order, but that episcopacy is, by Divine right, a superior order to the presbyterate. Add to this, that the arguments which St. Jerome uses in this discourse, are to prove that bishops are sometimes called 'presbyters. To this purpose he urges Acts, xx., and Philippians, i., and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and some others, but all driving to the same issue. To what? Not to prove that presbyters are sometimes called presbyters; for who doubts that? But that bishops are so, may be of some consideration, and needs a proof, and this he undertook. Now that they are so called, must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects. An identity, at least of names; for else it had been wholly impertinent. A disparity; or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem;' which were a business next to telling pins. Now, then, this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction. By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate; if jurisdiction too, I am content; but the former is most certain, if he stand to his own principles. This identity, then, which St. Jerome expresses of episcopus and presbyter, must be either in name or in jurisdiction. I know not certainly which he means, for his arguments conclude only for the identity of names, but his conclusion is for identity of jurisdiction: Et in communi debere ecclesiam regere,' is the intent of his discourse. If he means the first, viz. that of names, it is well enough, there is no harm done, it is in confesso apud omnes;' but concludes nothing, as I shall show hereafter; but because he intends, so far as may be guessed by his words, a parity and concurrence of jurisdiction, this must be considered distinctly. 1. Then In the first founding of churches, the apostles did appoint presbyters and inferior ministers, with a power of baptizing, preaching, consecrating, and reconciling in privato foro;' but did not in every church, at the first founding it, constitute a bishop. This is evident in Crete, in Ephesus, in Corinth, at Rome, at Antioch. 2. Where no bishops were constituted, there the apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands: "There comes upon me," saith St. Paul, "daily the care (or supravision) of all the churches." Not all absolutely,' for not all of the circumcision, but all of his charge,' with which he was once charged, and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting bishops there, for of these there is the same reason. And again: "If any man obey not our word, dià τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε, signify him to me by an epistle ;” so he charges the Thessalonians, and therefore of this church, St. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands. So that the church was ever, in all the parts of it, governed by episcopal or apostolical authority. 3. For aught appears in Scripture, the apostles never gave any external or coercive jurisdiction in public and criminal causes, nor yet power to ordain rites or ceremonies, or to inflict censures, to a college of mere presbyters. The contrary may be greedily swallowed, and I know not with how great confidence, and prescribing prejudice; but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ, any ordinance or warrant from the apostles, to any presbyter, or college of presbyters without a bishop, or express delegation of apostolical authority, tanquam vicario suo,' as to his substitute,' in absence of the bishop or apostle, to inflict any censures, or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal. Presbyters might be surrogati in locum episcopi absentis,' but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by 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 bishops 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 • 2 Thess. iii. 14. 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. 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 (avdpa's youμévous, St. Luke calls them "), were of that presbytery. Καὶ αὐτοὶ προφήται ὄντες. They were rulers, and prophets, chief men amongst the brethren, and yet called elders or presbyters, though of apostolical power and authority, ὅτι καὶ πρεσβυτέρων 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 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 circumstances occur, yet not necessary, because not affixed to their order; not 'Dominicæ dispositionis veritate,' and not laudable when those reasons cease, and there is an emergency of contrary causes. 2. The next presbytery we read of is at Antioch; but |