Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

VII.6. What manner of power Bishops from the first beginning have had.

159427 min read

VI. “A Bishop,” saith St. Augustine1, “is a Presbyter’s superior:” but the question is now, wherein that superiority did consist. The Bishop’s preeminence we say therefore was twofold. First he excelled in latitude of the power of order, secondly in that kind of power which belongeth unto jurisdiction. Priests in the law had authority and power to do greater things than Levites, the high-priest greater than inferior priests might do; therefore Levites were beneath priests, and priests inferior to the high-priest, by reason of the very degree of dignity, and of worthiness in the nature of those functions which they did execute, and not only for that the one had power to command and control the other. In like sort presbyters having a weightier and a worthier charge than deacons had, the deacon was in this sort the presbyter’s inferior; and where we say that a bishop was likewise ever accounted a presbyter’s superior, even according unto his very power of order, we must of necessity declare what principal duties belonging unto that kind of power a bishop might perform, and not a presbyter.

The custom of the primitive Church in consecrating holy virgins and widows unto the service of God and his Church, is a thing not obscure, but easy to be known, both by that which St. Paul himself2 concerning them hath, and by the latter consonant evidence of other men’s3 writings. Now a part of the preeminence which bishops had in their power of order, was that by them only such were consecrated.

Again, the power of ordaining both deacons and presbyters, the power to give the power of order unto others, this also hath been always peculiar unto bishops. It hath not been heard of, that inferior presbyters were ever authorized to ordain. And concerning ordination, so great force and dignity it hath, that whereas presbyters, by such power as they have received for administration of the sacraments, are able only to beget children unto God; bishops having power to ordain, do by virtue thereof create fathers to the people of God, as Epiphanius4 fitly disputeth. There are which hold that between a bishop and a presbyter, touching power of order, there is no difference. The reason of which conceit is, for that they see presbyters no less than bishops authorized to offer up the prayers of the Church, to preach the gospel, to baptize, to administer the holy Eucharist; but they considered not withal as they should, that the presbyter’s authority to do these things is derived from the bishop which doth ordain him thereunto, so that even in those things which are common unto both, yet the power of the one is as it were a certain light borrowed from the others’ lamp. The apostles being bishops at large, ordained every where5 presbyters. Titus and Timothy having received episcopal power, as apostolic ambassadors or legates, the one in Greece6 [Crete], the other in Ephesus7, they both did by virtue thereof likewise ordain throughout all churches deacons and presbyters within the circuits allotted unto them. As for bishops by restraint, their power this way incommunicable unto presbyters which of the ancients do not acknowledge?

I make not confirmation any part of that power which hath always belonged only unto bishops8, because in some places the custom was that presbyters might also confirm in the absence of a bishop; albeit for the most part none but only bishops were thereof the allowed ministers.

Here it will perhaps be objected that the power of ordination itself was not every where peculiar and proper unto bishops, as may be seen by a council of Carthage9, which sheweth their church’s order to have been, that presbyters should together with the bishop lay hands upon the ordained. But the answer hereunto is easy; for doth it hereupon follow that the power of ordination was not principally and originally in the bishop? Our Saviour hath said unto his Apostles10, “With me ye shall sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel;” yet we know that to him alone it belongeth to judge the world, and that to him all judgment is given. With us even at this day presbyters are licensed to do as much as that council speaketh of, if any be present. Yet will not any man thereby conclude that in this church others than bishops are allowed to ordain. The association of presbyters is no sufficient proof that the power of ordination is in them; but rather that it never was in them we may hereby understand, for that no man is able to shew either deacon or presbyter ordained by presbyters only, and his ordination accounted lawful in any ancient part of the Church; every where examples being found both of deacons and of presbyters ordained by bishops alone oftentimes, neither ever in that respect thought unsufficient.

Touching that other chiefty, which is of jurisdiction; amongst the Jews he which was highest through the worthiness of peculiar duties incident unto his function in the legal service of God, did bear always in ecclesiastical jurisdiction the chiefest sway. As long as the glory of the temple of God did last, there were in it sundry orders of men consecrated unto the service thereof, one sort of them inferior unto another in dignity and degree; the Nathiners subordinate unto the Levites, the Levites unto the Priests, the rest of the priests to those twenty-four which were chief priests, and they all to the High Priest. If any man surmise that the difference between them was only by distinction in the former kind of power, and not in this latter of jurisdiction, are not the words of the law manifest which make Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest chief captain of the Levites11, and overseer of them unto whom the charge of the sanctuary was committed? Again, at the commandment of Aaron and his sons are not the Gersonites themselves required12 to do all their service in the whole charge belonging unto the Gersonites, being inferior priests as Aaron and his sons were high priests? Did not Jehoshaphat13 appoint Amarias the priest to be chief over them who were judges for the cause of the Lord in Jerusalem? “Priests,” saith Josephus14, “worship God continually, and the eldest of the stock are governors over the rest. He doth sacrifice unto God before others, he hath care of the laws, judgeth controversies, correcteth offenders, and whosoever obeyeth him not is convict of impiety against God.”

But unto this they answer, that the reason thereof was because the high priest did prefigure Christ15, and represent to the people that chiefty of our Saviour which was to come; so that Christ being now come there is no cause why such preeminence should be given unto any one. Which fancy pleaseth so well the humour of all sorts of rebellious spirits, that they all seek to shroud themselves under it. Tell the Anabaptist, which holdeth the use of the sword unlawful for a Christian man, that God himself did allow his people to make wars16; they have their answer round and ready, “Those ancient wars were figures of the spiritual wars of Christ.” Tell the Barrowist what sway David and others the kings of Israel did bear in the ordering of spiritual affairs, the same answer again serveth, namely, “That David and the rest of the kings of Israel prefigured Christ.” Tell the Martinist of the high priest’s great authority and jurisdiction amongst the Jews, what other thing doth serve his turn but the selfsame shift; “By the power of the high priest the universal supreme authority of our Lord Jesus Christ was shadowed.”

The thing is true, that indeed high priests were figures of Christ, yet this was in things belonging unto their power of order; they figured Christ by entering into the holy place, by offering for the sins of all the people once a year, and by other the like duties: but that to govern and to maintain order amongst those that were subject to them, is an office figurative and abrogated by Christ’s coming in the ministry; that their exercise of jurisdiction was figurative, yea figurative in such sort, that it had no other cause of being instituted, but only to serve as a representation of somewhat to come, and that herein the Church of Christ ought not to follow them; this article is such as must be confirmed, if any way, by miracle, otherwise it will hardly enter into the heads of reasonable men, why the high priest should more figure Christ in being a Judge than in being whatsoever he might be besides. St. Cyprian17 deemed it no wresting of Scripture to challenge as much for Christian bishops as was given to the high priest among the Jews, and to urge the law of Moses as being most effectual to prove it. St. Jerome likewise thought it an argument sufficient to ground the authority of bishops upon18. “To the end,” saith he, “we may understand Apostolical traditions to have been taken from the Old Testament; that which Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the Church may lawfully challenge to themselves.”

In the office of a Bishop Ignatius19 observeth these two functions, ἱερατεύειν καὶ ἄρχειν: concerning the one, such is a [the?] preeminence of a bishop, that he only hath the heavenly mysteries of God committed originally unto him, so that otherwise than by his ordination, and by authority received from him, others besides him are not licensed therein to deal as ordinary ministers of God’s church. And touching the other part of their sacred function, wherein the power of their jurisdiction doth appear, first how the Apostles themselves, and secondly how Titus and Timothy had rule and jurisdiction over presbyters20, no man is ignorant. And had not Christian bishops afterwards the like power? Ignatius bishop of Antioch being ready by blessed martyrdom to end his life, writeth unto his presbyters, the pastors under him, in this sort21: Οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμι̑ν ποιμνίον, ἕως ἀναδείξῃ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν μέλλοντα ἄρχειν ὑμω̑ν. Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. After the death of Fabian bishop of Rome, there growing some trouble about the receiving of such persons into the Church as had fallen away in persecution, and did now repent their fall, the presbyters and deacons of the same church advertised St. Cyprian thereof22, signifying, “That they must of necessity defer to deal in that cause till God did send them a new bishop which might moderate all things.” Much we read of extraordinary fasting usually in the Church. And in this appeareth also somewhat concerning the chiefty of bishops. “The custom is,” saith Tertullian23, “that bishops do appoint when the people shall all fast.” “Yea, it is not a matter left to our own free choice whether bishops shall rule or no, but the will of our Lord and Saviour is,” saith Cyprian24, “that every act of the Church be governed by her bishops.” An argument it is of the bishop’s high preeminence, rule and government over all the rest of the clergy, even that the sword of persecution did strike, especially, always at the bishop as at the head, the rest by reason of their lower estate being more secure, as the selfsame Cyprian noteth; the very manner of whose speech unto his own both deacons and presbyters who remained safe, when himself then bishop was driven into exile, argueth likewise his eminent authority and rule over them. “By these letters,” saith he25, “I both exhort and command that ye whose presence there is not envied at, nor so much beset with dangers, supply my room in doing those things which the exercise of religion doth require.” Unto the same purpose serve most directly those comparisons26, than which nothing is more familiar in the books of the ancient Fathers, who as oft as they speak of the several degrees in God’s clergy, if they chance to compare presbyters with Levitical priests of the law, the bishop they compare27 unto Aaron the high priest; if they compare the one with the Apostles, the other they compare (although in a lower proportion) sometime to Christ28, and sometime to God himself, evermore shewing that they placed the bishop in an eminent degree of ruling authority and power above other presbyters. Ignatius29 comparing bishops with deacons, and with such ministers of the word and sacraments as were but presbyters, and had no authority over presbyters; “What is,” saith he, “the bishop, but one which hath all principality and power over all, so far forth as man may have it, being to his power a follower even of God’s own Christ?”

Mr. Calvin himself, though an enemy unto regiment by bishops, doth notwithstanding confess30, that in old time the ministers which had charge to teach, chose of their company one in every city, to whom they appropriated the title of bishop, lest equality should breed dissension. He added farther, that look, what duty the Roman consuls did execute in proposing matters unto the senate, in asking their opinions, in directing them by advice, admonition, exhortation, in guiding actions by their authority, and in seeing that performed which was with common consent agreed on, the like charge had the bishop in the assembly of other ministers. Thus much Calvin being forced by the evidence of truth to grant, doth yet deny the bishops to have been so in authority at the first as to bear rule over other ministers: wherein what rule he doth mean, I know not. But if the bishops were so far in dignity above other ministers, as the consuls of Rome for their year above other senators, it is as much as we require. And undoubtedly if as the consuls of Rome, so the bishops in the Church of Christ had such authority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that every of them should observe that which their common consent had agreed on, how this could be done by the bishop not bearing rule over them, for mine own part I must acknowledge that my poor conceit is not able to comprehend.

One objection there is of some force to make against that which we have hitherto endeavoured to prove, if they31 mistake it not who allege it. St. Jerome, comparing other presbyters with him unto whom the name of bishop was then appropriate, asketh32, “What a bishop by virtue of his place and calling may do more than a presbyter, except it be only to ordain?” In like sort Chrysostom having moved a question, wherefore St. Paul should give Timothy precept concerning the quality of bishops, and descend from them to deacons, omitting the order of presbyters between, he maketh thereunto this answer33, “What things he spake concerning bishops, the same are also meet for presbyters, whom bishops seem not to excel in any thing but only in the power of ordination.” Wherefore seeing this doth import no ruling superiority, it follows that bishops were as then no rulers over that part of the clergy of God.

Whereunto we answer, that both St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom had in those their speeches an eye no further than only to that function for which presbyters and bishops were consecrated unto God. Now we know that their consecration had reference to nothing but only that which they did by force and virtue of the power of order, wherein sith bishops received their charge, only by that one degree, to speak of, more ample than presbyters did theirs, it might be well enough said that presbyters were that way authorized to do, in a manner, even as much as bishops could do, if we consider what each of them did by virtue of solemn consecration: for as concerning power of regiment and jurisdiction, it was a thing withal added unto bishops for the necessary use of such certain persons and people, as should be thereunto subject in those particular churches whereof they were bishops, and belonged to them only as bishops of such or such a church; whereas the other kind of power had relation indefinitely unto any of the whole society of Christian men, on whom they should chance to exercise the same, and belonged to them absolutely, as they were bishops wheresoever they lived. St. Jerome’s conclusion thereof is34, “That seeing in the one kind of power there is no greater difference between a presbyter and a bishop, bishops should not because of their preeminence in the other too much lift up themselves above the presbyters under them.” St. Chrysostom’s collection, “That whereas the Apostle doth set down the qualities whereof regard should be had in the consecration of bishops, there was no need to make a several discourse how presbyters ought to be qualified when they are ordained; because there being so little difference in the functions, whereunto the one and the other receive ordination, the same precepts might well serve for both; at leastwise by the virtues required in the greater, what should need in the less might be easily understood. As for the difference of jurisdiction, the truth is, the Apostles yet living, and themselves where they were resident exercising the jurisdiction in their own persons, it was not every where established in bishops.” When the Apostles prescribed those laws, and when Chrysostom thus spake concerning them, it was not by him at all respected, but his eye was the same way with Jerome’s; his cogitation was wholly fixed on that power which by consecration is given to bishops more than to presbyters, and not on that which they have over presbyters by force of their particular accessary jurisdiction.

Wherein if any man suppose that Jerome and Chrysostom knew no difference at all between a presbyter and a bishop, let him weigh but one or two of their sentences. The pride of insolent bishops hath not a sharper enemy than Jerome, for which cause he taketh often occasions most severely to inveigh against them, sometimes for35 shewing disdain and contempt of the clergy under them; sometime for not36 suffering themselves to be told of their faults, and admonished of their duty by inferiors; sometime for not admitting37 their presbyters to teach, if so be themselves were in presence; sometimes for not vouchsafing to use any conference with them, or to take any counsel of them. Howbeit never doth he in such wise bend himself against their disorders, as to deny their rule and authority over presbyters. Of Vigilantius being a presbyter, he thus writeth38: “Miror sanctum episcopum in cujus parochia presbyter esse dicitur, acquiescere furori ejus, et non virga apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile:” “I marvel that the holy bishop under whom Vigilantius is said to be a presbyter, doth yield to his fury, and not break that unprofitable vessel with his apostolic and iron rod.” With this agreeth most fitly the grave advice he giveth to Nepotian39: “Be thou subject unto thy bishop, and receive him as the father of thy soul. This also I say, that bishops should know themselves to be priests and not lords; that they ought to honour the clergy as beseemeth the clergy to be honoured, to the end their clergy may yield them the honour which as bishops they ought to have40. That of the orator Domitius is famous: ‘Wherefore should I esteem of thee as of a prince, when thou makest not of me that reckoning which should in reason be made of a senator?’ Let us know the bishop and his presbyters to be the same which Aaron sometime and his sons were.” Finally writing against the heretics which were named Luciferians41, “The very safety of the Church,” saith he, “dependeth on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom unless men grant an exceeding and an eminent power, there will grow in churches even as many schisms as there are persons which have authority.”

Touching Chrysostom, to shew that by him there was also acknowledged a ruling superiority of bishops over presbyters, both then usual, and in no respect unlawful, what need we allege his words and sentences, when the history of his own episcopal actions in that very kind is till this day extant for all men to read that will? For St. Chrysostom of a presbyter in Antioch, grew to be afterwards bishop of Constantinople; and in process of time when the emperor’s heavy displeasure had through the practice of a powerful faction against him effected his banishment, Innocent the bishop of Rome understanding thereof wrote his letters unto the clergy of that Church42, “That no successor ought to be chosen in Chrysostom’s room: nec ejus Clerum alii parere Pontifici, nor his clergy obey any other bishop than him.” A fond kind of speech, if so be there had been as then in bishops no ruling superiority over presbyters. When two of Chrysostom’s presbyters43 had joined themselves to the faction of his mortal enemy Theophilus, Patriarch in the Church of Alexandria, the same Theophilus and other bishops which were of his conventicle, having sent those two amongst others to cite Chrysostom their lawful bishop, and to bring him into public judgment, he taketh against this one thing special exception, as being contrary to all order, that those presbyters should come as messengers and call him to judgment, who were a part of that clergy whereof himself was ruler and judge. So that bishops to have had in those times a ruling superiority over presbyters, neither could Jerome nor Chrysostom be ignorant; and therefore hereupon it were superfluous that we should any longer stand.

← The time and cause of instituting everywhere · Contents · After what sort Bishops together with presby →

Footnotes

  1. Aug. Ep. 19. [al. 82. c. 4. fin.] ad Hieron. [t. ii. 202. “Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula, quæ jam Ecclesiæ usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est.”] et de Hæres. 53. [t. viii. 18. “Aërius … dicebat etiam presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni.”] ↩

  2. 1 Cor. vii. 25; 1 Tim. v. 9. ↩

  3. Tertull. de vel. Virg. [c. 9. “Scio alicubi virginem in viduatu ab annis nondum viginti collocatam; cui si quid refrigerii debuerat episcopus, aliter utique salvo respectu disciplinæ præstare potuisset.”] ↩

  4. Epiph. lib. iii. Hær. 75. [c. 4. speaking of Aërius. Ὅτι μὲν ἀϕροσύνης ἐστὶ τὸ πα̑ν ἔμπλεων, τοι̑ς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις, του̑το δη̑λον· τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἰ̑σον εἰ̑ναι· καὶ πω̑ς ἔσται του̑το δυνατόν; ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστι πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις· πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾳ̑ τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννᾳ̑ν, διὰ τη̑ς του̑ λουτρου̑ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾳ̑τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐ μὴν πατέρας, ἢ διδασκάλους.] ↩

  5. Acts xiv. 23. ↩

  6. Tit. i. 5. ↩

  7. 1 Tim. v. 22. ↩

  8. “Apud Ægyptum presbyteri consignant, si præsens non sit episcopus.” Com. q. vulgo Ambros. dic. in 4. ep. ad Ephes. [§ 9. in App. 241. ed. Bened.] ↩

  9. [Concil. Carthag. iv. can. 3. t. i. 979. ed. Harduin. ad 398. “Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente, et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri qui præsentes sunt manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant.”] ↩

  10. [Matt. xix. 28.] ↩

  11. Numb. iii. 32. ↩

  12. Numb. iv. 27. ↩

  13. 2 Chron. xix. 11. ↩

  14. Joseph. Antiq. p. 612. [του̑τον θεραπεύουσι μὲν διὰ παντὸς οἱ ἱερει̑ς, ἡγει̑ται δὲ τούτων ὁ πρω̑τος ἀεὶ κατὰ γένος. οὑ̑τος μετὰ τω̑ν συνιερέων θύσει τῳ̑ Θεῳ̑, ϕυλάξει τοὺς νόμους, δικάσει περὶ τω̑ν ἀμϕισβητουμένων, κολάσει τοὺς ἐλεγχθέντας ἐπ’ ἀδίκῳ· ὁ δέ γε τούτῳ μὴ πειθόμενος, ὑϕέξει δίκην ὡς εἰς τὸν Θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀσεβω̑ν. Contr. Apion. II. 23.] ↩

  15. [E. g. Beza, Respons. ad Saraviam, De divers. Grad. Ministr. Evang. c. 14. § 2. in Tract. Sarav. p. 136. “Respondeo non fuisse æquale neque sacerdotum neque Levitarum inter se ministerium. Fuerunt enim aliæ et eminentiores summi sacerdotis, quam aliorum infra ipsum, partes; ut cui soli sacrarium ingredi liceret, ut Jesu Christi ecclesiæ suæ capitis unici typo.” comp. “De Triplici Sacerdotio,” p. 60.] ↩

  16. [De Brés, “Racine, Source, et Fondement des Anabaptistes.” p. 822. “Plusieurs de nos Anabaptistes pensent bien d’échapper de tant de témoignages qui sont contr’eux, disant, que tous ces témoignages sont pris du Vieil Testament, et qu’ils ne doivent avoir lieu au Nouveau, en tant que notre Seigneur requiert une perfection plus grande en l’église Chrétienne qu’il n’a pas fait au peuple Judaique.” Comp. p. 825. “Les Anabaptistes pensent bien tout renverser, quand ils nous repliquent le dire du Prophête Esaie, ii. 4; xi. 6.” &c.] ↩

  17. Cypr. l. iii. Ep. 9. [65. ed. Baluz.] ad Rogatianum. [“Tu quidem honorifice circa nos et pro solita tua humilitate fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro episcopatus vigore et cathedræ auctoritate haberes potestatem qua posses de illo statim vindicari, … habens circa hujusmodi homines præcepta divina, cum Dominus Deus in Deuteronomio dicat, ‘Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia, ut non exaudiat sacerdotem aut judicem quicunque fuerit in diebus illis,’ &c… . Et ut sciamus hanc Dei vocem cum vera et summa majestate ejus processisse ad honorandos ac vindicandos sacerdotes suos, cum adversus Aaron sacerdotem tres de ministris, Chore, et Dathan, et Abiron ausi sunt superbisse et cervicem suam extollere, et sacerdoti præposito se adæquare, hiatu terræ absorpti ac devorati pœnas statim sacrilegæ audaciæ persolverunt… . Ut probaretur sacerdotes Dei ab eo qui sacerdotes facit vindicari.”] ↩

  18. Hier. Ep. 85. [al. 146. fin. vid. supr. c. v. § 6. p. 160, note 1.] ↩

  19. Ep. ad Smyr. [c. 9. vid. supr. b. vi. c. ii. § 1. p. 4, note 4.] ↩

  20. 1 Tim. v. 19. “Against a presbyter receive no accusation under two or three witnesses.” ↩

  21. Ignat. [adscr.] Epist. ad Antioch. [c. 8.] ↩

  22. Apud Cypr. Ep. ii. 7. [31. “Quanquam nobis differendæ hujus rei necessitas major incumbat, quibus post excessum nobilissimæ memoriæ viri Fabiani nondum est episcopus propter rerum et temporum difficultates constitutus, qui omnia ista moderetur, et eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum auctoritate et consilio habere rationem.”] ↩

  23. “Episcopi universæ plebi mandare jejunia assolent.” Tertull. advers. Psychic. [c. 13.] ↩

  24. Cypr. Ep. 27. [al. 33. “Dominus noster, cujus præcepta et monita observare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiæ suæ rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro, ‘Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus,’ &c… … Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiæ ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiæ per eosdem præpositos gubernetur.”] ↩

  25. Cypr. Ep. 39. [al. 5. ed. Baluz. Fretus et dilectione et religione vestra, quam satis novi, his literis et hortor et mando, ut vos, quorum minime illic invidiosa et non adeo periculosa præsentia est, vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quæ administratio religiosa deposcit.”] ↩

  26. Vide Ignat. ad Magnes. [c. vi. προκαθημένου του̑ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον Θεου̑, καὶ τω̑ν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τω̑ν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τω̑ν διακόνων, τω̑ν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων, πεπιστευμένων διακονίαν Ἰησου̑ Χριστου̑ . . c. vii. ὥσπερ οὐ̑ν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ του̑ Πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, ἡνωμένος ὢν, οὔτε δι’ αὐτου̑, οὔτε διὰ τω̑ν Ἀποστόλων· οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμει̑ς ἄνευ του̑ ἐπισκόπου καὶ τω̑ν πρεσβυτέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε… c. xiii. ὑποτάγητε τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ Ἰησου̑ς Χριστὸς τῳ̑ Πατρὶ κατὰ σάρκα, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῳ̑ Χριστῳ̑ καὶ τῳ̑ Πατρὶ καὶ τῳ̑ Πνεύματι, ἵνα ἕνωσις ᾐ̑ σαρκική τε καὶ πνευματική.] ↩

  27. “Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc episcopum et presbyteros esse noverimus.” Hier. ad Nepotianum, ep. 2. [al. 52. § 7. t. i. p. 260. ed. Vallarsii.] ↩

  28. “Ita est, ut in episcopis Dominum, in presbyteris Apostolos recognoscas.” Auctor Opusc. de septem Ordinib. Eccl. inter Opera Hieron. [t. xi. 123.] ↩

  29. Ignat. [interp.] Ep. ad Trall. [c. 7. τί γάρ ἐστιν ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλ’ ἢ πάσης ἀρχη̑ς καὶ ἐξουσίας ἐπέκεινα πάντων κρατω̑ν, ὡς οἱ̑όν τε ἄνθρωπον κρατει̑ν, μιμητὴν γινόμενον κατὰ δύναμιν Χριστου̑ του̑ Θεου̑.] ↩

  30. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 4. § 2. [“Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat, eos omnes nominabant presbyteros. Illi ex suo numero in singulis civitatibus unum eligebant, cui specialiter dabant titulum episcopi; ne ex æqualitate, ut fieri solet, dissidia nascerentur. Neque tamen sic honore et dignitate superior erat episcopus ut dominium in collegas haberet; sed quas partes habet consul in senatu, ut referat de negotiis, sententias roget, consulendo, monendo; hortando, aliis præeat, authoritate sua totam actionem regat, et quod decretum communi consilio fuerit exsequatur; id muneris sustinebat episcopus in presbyterorum cœtu.”] ↩

  31. [T. C. i. 109. al. 83. “That he meaneth nothing less than to make any such difference between a bishop and a minister as is with us, … I will send you to Chrysostom upon 1 Tim. iii. where he saith, ‘The office of a bishop differeth little or nothing from an elder’s:’ and a little after, ‘That a bishop differeth nothing from an elder or minister but by the ordination only.’ ” Whitgift, Def. 387. “Chrysostom in that place maketh degrees in the ministry, and placeth the bishop in degree above the minister, which utterly overthroweth your equality.”] ↩

  32. Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr. [Evang.] 85. [al. 146. § 1. “Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?”] ↩

  33. Chrysost. Hom. x. [xi.] in 1 Tim. 3. [t. xi. p. 604. ed. Ben. Ἃ περὶ ἐπισκόπων εἰ̑πε, ταυ̑τα καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ἁρμόττει· τῃ̑ γὰρ χειροτονίᾳ μόνῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι, καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δοκου̑σι πλεονεκτει̑ν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους.] ↩

  34. [Ep. ad Nepot. 2. al. 52. § 7.] ↩

  35. “Velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti, vix dignantur videre mortales et alloqui conservos suos.” In 4. c. Epist. ad Gal. [v. 13. t. vii. 458.] ↩

  36. “Nemo peccantibus episcopis audet contradicere; nemo audet accusare majorem; propterea quasi sancti et beati et in præceptis Domini ambulantes augent peccata peccatis. Difficilis est accusatio in episcopum. Si enim peccaverit, non creditur; et si convictus fuerit, non punitur.” In cap. 8. Ecclesiast. v. 11. [iii. 454. The later editions of St. Jerome omit the first clause.] ↩

  37. “Pessimæ consuetudinis est, in quibusdam ecclesiis tacere presbyteros et præsentibus episcopis non loqui; quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire.” Ep. ad Nepotian. [52. § 7.] ↩

  38. Ep. 53. ad Ripar. [al. 109. § 2. i. 720.] ↩

  39. Hier. ad Nepot. [52. § 7. “Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo, et quasi animæ parentem suscipe… Illud etiam dico, quod episcopi, sacerdotes se esse noverint, non dominos; honorent clericos quasi clericos, ut et ipsis a clericis quasi episcopis honor deferatur. Scitum illud est oratoris Domitii, ‘Cur ego te, inquit, habeam ut principem, quum tu me non habeas ut senatorem?’ Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc esse episcopum et presbyteros noverimus. Unus Dominus, unum Templum; unum sit etiam ministerium.” i. 260.] ↩

  40. No bishop may be a lord in reference unto the presbyters which are under him, if we take that name in the worst part, as Jerome here doth. For a bishop is to rule his presbyters, not as lords do their slaves, but as fathers do their children. ↩

  41. [§ 9. “Ecclesiæ salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet; cui si non exsors quædam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes.” ii. 182.] ↩

  42. In Vita Chrys. per Cassiod. Sen. [in Hist. Eccles. Tripart. (a Latin compilation from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, made or translated at the instance of Cassiodorus (470-565) by his friend Epiphanius Scholasticus) l. x. c. 18.] 1886. ↩

  43. Pallad. (367-431.) in Vita Chrys. [c. 9. t. xiii. p. 29 E. ed. Bened. ἐμηνύθησαν δύο πρεσβύτεροι του̑ Ἰωάννου, … λέγοντες, “ἐδήλωσέν σοι ἡ σύνοδος· ‘πέρασον πρὸς ἡμα̑ς, ἀπολογησόμενος τὰ ἐγκλήματα.’ ” πρὸς ταυ̑τα ὁ Ἰωάννης ἀντεδήλωσεν δι’ ἐπισκόπων ἑτέρων· “ποίᾳ ἀκολουθίᾳ δικάζετε, οἱ μήτε τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐξεώσαντες, καὶ διὰ τω̑ν ἐμω̑ν κληρικω̑ν μεταστελλόμενοι;”] ↩

Backlinks