XX. Concerning title, albeit even as under the law all they whom God hath severed to offer him sacrifice were generally termed priests, so likewise the name of pastor or presbyter be now common unto all that serve him in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ; yet both then and now the higher orders, as well of the one sort as of the other, have by one and the same congruity of reason their different titles of honour, wherewith we find them in the phrase of ordinary speech exalted above others. Thus the heads of the twenty-four companies of priests are in Scripture termed1 arch-priests; Aaron and the successors of Aaron being above those arch-priests, themselves are in that respect further entitled high and great. After what sort antiquity hath used to style Christian bishops, and to yield them in that kind honour more than were meet for inferior pastors, I may the better omit to declare, both because others have sufficiently done it already, and in so slight a thing it were but a loss of time to bestow further travel. The allegation of Christ’s prerogative to be named an arch-pastor2 simply, in regard of his absolute excellency over all, is no impediment but that the like title in an unlike signification may be granted unto others besides him, to note a more limited superiority, whereof men are capable enough without derogation from his glory, than which nothing is more sovereign. To quarrel at syllables, and to take so poor exceptions at the first four letters in the name of an archbishop, as if they were manifestly stolen goods whereof restitution ought to be made to the civil magistrate3 toucheth no more the prelates that now are, than it doth the very blessed Apostle, who giveth unto himself the title of an archbuilder.
As for our Saviour’s words alleged against the title of lordship and grace, we have before sufficiently opened how far they are drawn from their natural meaning, to bolster up a cause which they nothing at all concern. Bishops Theodoret4 entitleth “most honourable.” Emperors writing unto bishops, have not disdained to give them their appellations of honour, “Your holiness5,” “Your blessedness,” “Your amplitude,” “Your highness,” and the like: such as purposely have done otherwise are noted of insolent singularity and pride.
Honour done by giving preeminence of place unto one sort before another, is for decency, order, and quietness’ sake so needful, that both imperial laws6 and canons ecclesiastical7 have made their special provisions for it. Our Saviour’s invective against the vain affectation of superiority, whether in title or in place8, may not hinder these seemly differences usual in giving and taking honour, either according to the one or the other.
Something there is even in the ornaments of honour also; otherwise idle it had been for the wise man speaking of Aaron, to stand so much upon the circumstance of his priestly attire, and to urge it as an argument of such dignity and greatness in him9: “An everlasting covenant God made with Aaron, and gave him the priesthood among the people, and made him blessed through his comely ornament, and clothed him with the garment of honour.” The robes of a judge do not add to his virtue; the chiefest ornament of kings is justice; holiness and purity of conversation do much more adorn a bishop, than his peculiar form of clothing. Notwithstanding, both judges, through the garments of judicial authority, and through the ornaments of sovereignty, princes; yea bishops through the very attire of bishops, are made blessed, that is to say, marked and manifested they are to be such as God hath poured his blessing upon, by advancing them above others, and placing them where they may do him principal good service. Thus to be called is to be blessed, and therefore to be honoured with the signs of such a calling must needs be in part a blessing also; for of good things even the signs are good.
Of honour, another part is attendancy; and therefore in the visions of the glory of God, angels are spoken of as his attendants. In setting out the honour of that mystical queen, the prophet mentioneth the virgin ladies which waited on her. Amongst the tokens of Solomon’s honourable condition, his servants and waiters the sacred history omitteth not.
This doth prove attendants a part of honour: but this as yet doth not shew with what attendancy prelates are to be honoured. Of the high-priest’s retinue amongst the Jews, somewhat the Gospel itself doth intimate. And albeit our Saviour came to minister, and not, as the Jews did imagine their Messias should, to be ministered unto in this world, yet attended on he was by his blessed Apostles, who followed him not only as scholars, but even as servants about him. After that he had sent them, as himself was sent of God, in the midst of that hatred and extreme contempt which they sustained at the world’s hands, by saints and believers this part of honour was most plentifully done unto them. Attendants they had provided in all places where they went; which custom of the Church was still continued in bishops their successors10, as by Ignatius it is plain to be seen. And from hence no doubt those Acolythes took their beginning11, of whom so frequent mention is made; the bishop’s attendants, his followers they were: in regard of which service the name of Acolythes seemeth plainly to have been given. The custom for bishops to be attended upon by many is as Justinian12 doth shew ancient: the affairs of regiment, wherein prelates are employed, make it necessary that they always have many about them whom they may command, although no such thing did by way of honour belong unto them.
Some men’s judgment is, that if clerks, students, and religious persons were more, common serving men and lay retainers fewer than they are in bishops’ palaces, the use and the honour thereof would be much more suitable than now. But these things, concerning the number and quality of persons fit to attend on prelates, either for necessity, or for honour’s sake, are rather in particular discretion to be ordered, than to be argued of by disputes.
As for the vain imagination of some13, who teach the original hereof to have been a preposterous imagination of Maximinus the emperor, who being addicted unto idolatry, chose of the choicest magistrates to be priests, and to the end they might be in great estimation, gave unto each of them a train of followers; and that Christian emperors, thinking the same would promote Christianity which promoted superstition, endeavoured to make their bishops encounter and match with those idolatrous priests: such frivolous conceits, having no other ground than conceit, we weigh not so much as to frame any answer unto them; our declaration of the true original of ancient attendancy on bishops being sufficient. Now if that which the light of sound reason doth teach to be fit, have upon like inducements reasonable, allowable, and good, approved itself in such wise as to be accepted, not only of us, but of pagans and infidels also; doth conformity with them that are evil in that which is good, make that thing which is good evil? We have not herein followed the heathens, nor the heathens us, but both we and they one and the selfsame divine rule, the light of a true and sound understanding, which sheweth what honour is fit for prelates, and what attendancy convenient to be a part of their honour.
Touching privileges granted for honour’s sake, partly in general unto the clergy, and partly unto prelates the chiefest persons ecclesiastical in particular; of such quality and number they are14, that to make but rehearsal of them we scarce think it safe, lest the very entrails of some of our godly brethren, as they term themselves, should thereat haply burst in sunder.
← What kinds of honour be due unto Bishops. · Contents · Honour by endowment with Lands and Livings. →
Footnotes
-
Ἀρχιερει̑ς. ↩
-
[T. C. i. 61. ap. Def. 300. al. 81. “The title of archbishop is only proper to our Saviour Christ, therefore no man may take that unto him. That it is proper to our Saviour Christ, appeareth by that which St. Peter saith, when he calleth him ἀρχιποιμένα… And in the Hebrews where he is called the great shepherd of the sheep, and in the Acts and Hebrews archleader of life and salvation, which … are proper titles of his mediation, and therefore cannot be without bold presumption applied unto any mortal man.” Whitgift, Def. ibid. “What name is more proper unto God than is this name God? and yet is the same also attributed unto man.”] ↩
-
[T. C. ii. 408. “The Greek word signifying prince, which name he confesseth proper unto the civil magistrate; it must follow that the name of archbishop, which is as much as prince of bishops, breaketh upon the possession of the magistrate.”] ↩
-
Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 8. [rather c. 9. in which he gives the synodical epistle of the council of Constantinople to the Roman synod, beginning Κυρίοις τιμιωτάτοις.] ↩
-
[Τὴν σὴν ἁγιωσύνην. Cod. Justin. I. 1.] de summa Trinit. l. vii. [“tuæ sublimitatis.” ibid. I. 3.] de Episc. et cler. l. xxxiii. ↩
-
[“Sacrosanctam hujus religiosissimæ civitatis ecclesiam … privilegia et honores omnes super episcoporum creationibus, et jure ante alios residendi, et cætera … habere sancimus.” Impp. Leo et Anthemius in Cod. Just. i. 2.] de sacros. Eccles. l. xvi. ↩
-
[Conc. Nic. Canones Arabici, can. lvii. “Locus episcopi in oratione sit in summo sacelli sive capellæ intra locum altaris, ut qui sit pastor et gubernator: post eum sit archidiaconus ad latus dextrum, ut qui sit loco ejus, et præsit omnibus quæ ad orationem et ecclesiam pertinent: chorepiscopus autem sit post archidiaconum ad alterum latus, quia ipse etiam est loco episcopi super villas, et monasteria et sacerdotes villarum,” t. i. 472. ed. Hard. iv Conc. Carth. ad 398. can. 35. “Ut episcopus in ecclesia, et in consessu presbyterorum, sublimior sedeat. Intra domum vero, collegam se presbyterorum esse agnoscat.” t. i. 981.] ↩
-
“They love to have the chief seats in the assemblies, and to be called of men Rabbi.” Matt. xxiii. 6, 7. [quoted in Adm. ap. Def. 57; Answ. 40. al. 15; T. C. i. 12. al. 24; Def. 71, 72.] ↩
-
Ecclus. xlv. 7. ↩
-
[Ign. ad Philadelph. Ep. interp. c. xi; ad Smyrn. c. x; Martyr. Ign. c. 3. ἐδεξιου̑ντο τὸν ἅγιον, διὰ τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων, αἱ τη̑ς Ἀσίας πόλεις καὶ ἐκκλησίαι, πάντων ἐπειγομένων πρὸς αὐτόν. ap. Coteler. t. ii. 159.] ↩
-
[Before the middle of the third century, vid. (e. g.) S. Cypr. Ep. 55. “Cyprianus Cornelio. Legi literas tuas, quas per Saturum fratrem nostrum acolythum misisti;” et Ep. 36. “Peregrinis sumptus suggeratis … misi … . per Naricum acolythum aliam portionem;” et S. Cornelius ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 43. who reckons up ἀκολούθους δύο καὶ τεσσαράκοντα among the officers of the Roman church. Comp. Duarenus de Sacr. Eccles. Minist. i. 14. as quoted by Bingham, b. iii. c. iii. § 3. “Extat rescriptum cujusdam Pontificis ap. Gratianum, quo præcipitur Episcopis ut comites semper aliquos (duo Presbyteros et tres Diaconos) secum ducant famæ suspicionisque vitandæ causa. Can. Jubemus; de Consecr. dist. i. (p. 1868.) Vel ideo acoluthi appellati sunt, quod funus una cum canonicorum et ascetriarum cœtu comitarentur. Nam eos id munus obire solitos fuisse satis perspicuum est ex constitutione Justiniani: Novell. ix.” (c. iv. p. 136. ed. Gothofr.)] ↩
-
Novel. vi. [c. 2. του̑το οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι πρέποντα λογισμὸν, τὸ μετὰ πλήθους (ὅπερ ἀνάγκη τὰς τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων ἔχειν θεραπείας) περινοστει̑ν … ἐν ξένῃ. vid. p. 18. ed. Gothofr. 1688.] ↩
-
T. C. l. i. p. 126. [al. 98: ap. Whitg. Def. 451. “Another reason of this pomp and stateliness of the bishops was that which almost brought in all poison and popish corruption into the church, and that is a foolish emulation of the manners and fashions of the idolatrous nations… . Galerius Maximinus the emperor to the end that he might promote the idolatry and superstition whereunto he was addicted, chose of the choicest magistrates to be priests, and that they might be in great estimation gave each of them a train of men to follow them: and now the Christians and Christian emperors thinking that that would promote the Christian religion that promoted superstition, … . . endeavoured to make their bishops encounter and match with those idolatrous priests, and cause that they should not be inferior to them in wealth and outward pomp. Eusebius, lib. viii. cap. 15.” 14. ed. Reading. p. 399. Ἱερέας τε εἰδώλων κατὰ πάντα τόπον καὶ πόλιν· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἑκάστης ἐπαρχίας ἀρχιερέα τω̑ν ἐν πολιτείαις ἑνά γέ τινα, μάλιστα τὸν ἐμϕανω̑ς διὰ πάσης ἐμπρέψαντα λειτουργίας, μετὰ στρατιωτικου̑ στίϕους καὶ δορυϕορίας ἐκτάσσων. ἀναιδήν τε πα̑σι γόησιν, ὡς ἂν εὐσεβέσι καὶ θεω̑ν προσϕιλέσι, ἡγεμονίας καὶ τὰς μεγίστας προνομίας δωρούμενος. Whitgift: “There is not one word, that any Christian prince took any example of him to do the like in Christianity. It rather appeareth that Maximinus did in this point imitate the Christians, who had their metropolitans, and one chief bishop in every province long before this time.” The conduct of Julian afterwards seems to warrant this conjecture.] ↩
-
L. 12. C. de sacros. Eccles. [This is a law of Valentinian the Third and Marcian, ad 454, confirming all former church privileges, annulling encroachments, and especially enjoining the payment of allowances.] L. 5. ibid. [A law of Honorius and Theodosius ii. ad 412. “Placet … . præscribere, a quibus specialiter necessitatibus singularum urbium ecclesiæ habeantur immunes. Prima quippe illius usurpationis contumelia depellenda est: ne prædia usibus cælestium secretorum dedicata, sordidorum munerum fœce vexentur.”] L. 2. C. de Episc. et Cler. [A law of Constantius (ad 357.) reenacting former immunities, and extending them to the wives and families of clergymen.] L. 10. ibid. [Arcadius and Honorius, ad 398, enjoin on provincial officers immediate regard to all cases of sacrilege, and add, “Nec expectet (provinciæ moderator), ut episcopus injuriæ propriæ ultionem deposcat, cui sanctitas ignoscendi gloriam dereliquit. Sitque cunctis laudabile, factas atroces sacerdotibus aut ministris injurias veluti crimen publicum persequi, ac de talibus reis ultionem mereri.”] ↩