give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk and beat his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour 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 S. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. 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 ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer 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 Colledge 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 vertue 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 Colledge 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 superiour 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 ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn 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 publick 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 meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited 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 meer 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 vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer 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 Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris 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 concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae 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 there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. 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 meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge 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 S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's 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 sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons 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 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 Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia 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 S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. 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 S. 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 praeexistent power 3. All that S. 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 spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for Saint Paul sent for him a little before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer 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 entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt 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 Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought 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 Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint 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 inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * 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 and then secondly Saint 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 explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. 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 Saint 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 ver 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 's 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 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 there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned 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 meer 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 publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or 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 Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned 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 Saint Hierom 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 fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes and persons of Clergy-men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio Nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
Patriarchat These are enough to shew that in the Primitive Church there were Metropolitan Bishops Now then either Bishops were Parochial or no If no then they were Diocesan if yea then at least many of them were Diocesan for they had according to this rate many Parochial Bishops under them * But I have stood too long upon this impertinent trifle but as now adays it is made the consideration of it is material to the main Question Only this I add That if any man should trouble the world with any other fancy of his own and say that our Bishops are nothing like the Primitive because all the Bishops of the Primitive Church had only two towns in their charge and no more and each of these towns had in them 170 families and were bound to have no more how should this man be confuted It was just such a device as this in them that first meant to disturb this Question by pretending that the Bishops were only Parochial not Diocesan and that there was no other Bishop but the Parish-Priest Most certainly themselves could not believe the allegation only they knew it would raise a dust But by Gods providence there is water enough in the Primitive fountains to allay it SECT XLIV And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired ANOTHER consideration must here be interposed concerning the intervening of Presbyters in the regiment of the several Churches For though I have twice already shown that they could not challenge it of right either by Divine institution or Apostolical ordinance yet here also it must be considered how it was in the practice of the Primitive Church for those men that call the Bishop a Pope are themselves desirous to make a Conclave of Cardinals too and to make every Diocess a Roman Consistory 1. Then the first thing we hear of Presbyters after Scripture I mean for of it I have already given account is from the testimony of S. Hierome Antequam studiain religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli c. communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Before factions arose in the Church the Church was governed by the common Counsel of Presbyters Here S. Hierome either means it of the time before Bishops were constituted in particular Churches or after Bishops were appointed If before Bishops were appointed no hurt done the Presbyters might well rule in common before themselves had a ruler appointed to govern both them and all the Diocess beside For so S. Ignatius writing to the Church of Antioch exhorts the Presbyters to feed the flock until God should declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom he would make their ruler And S. Cyprian speaking of Etecusa and some other women that had made defailance in time of persecution and so were put to penance praeceperunt eas Praepositi tantisper sic esse donec Episcopus constituatur The Presbyters whom sede vacante he praeter morem suum calls Praepositos they gave order that they should so remain till the Consecration of a Bishop * But if S. Hierome means this saying of his after Bishops were fixt then his expression answers the allegation for it was but communi Consilio Presbyterorum the Judicium might be solely in the Bishop he was the Judge though the Presbyters were the counsellors For so himself adds that upon occasion of those first Schisms in Corinth it was decreed in all the World ut omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertineret all the care of the Diocess was in the Bishop and therefore all the power for it was unimaginable that the burden should be laid on the Bishop and the strength put into the hands of the Presbyters * And so S. Ignatius stiles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Assessors and Counsellors to the Bishop But yet if we take our estimate from Ignatius The Bishop is the Ruler without him though all concurr'd yet nothing could be done nothing attempted The Bishop was Superiour in all power and authority He was to be obeyed in all things and contradicted in nothing The Bishops judgment was to sway and nothing must seem pleasing to the Presbyters that was cross to the Bishops sentence this and a great deal more which I have formerly made use of is in Ignatius And now let their assistance and counsel extend as far as it will the Bishops authority is invulnerable But I have already enough discussed this instance of S. Hierom's Sect. thither I refer the Reader 2. But S. Cyprian must do this business for us if any man for of all the Bishops he did acts of the greatest condescention and seeming declination of Episcopal authority But let us see the worst Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatûs mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae privatâ sententiâ gerere And again quamvis mihi videantur debere pacem accipere tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere And a third time Quae res cùm omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectat praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo These are the greatest steps of Episcopal humility that I find in Materiâ juridicâ The sum whereof is this that S. Cyprian did consult his Presbyters and Clergy in matters of consequence and resolved to do nothing without their advice But then consider also it was statui apud me I have resolved with my self to do nothing without your Counsel It was no necessity ab extrà no duty no Sanction of holy Church that bound him to such a modesty it was his own voluntary act 2. It was as well Diaconorum as Presbyterorum consilium that he would have in conjunction as appears by the titles of the sixth and eighteenth Epistles Cyprianus Presbyteris ac Diaconis fratribus salutem So that here the Presbyters can no more challenge a power of regiment in common than the Deacons by any Divine Law or Catholick practice 3. S. Cyprian also would actually have the consent of the people too and that will as well disturb the Jus Divinum of an independant Presbytery as of an independant Episcopacy But indeed neither of them both need to be much troubled for all this was voluntary in S. Cyprian like Moses qui cùm in potestate suâ habuit ut solus possit praeesse populo seniores elegit to use S. Hierome's expression who when it was in his power alone to rule the people yet chose seventy Elders for assistants For as for S. Cyprian this very Epistle clears it that no part of his Episcopal authority was impaired For he shews what himself alone could do Fretus igitur dilectione vestrâ religione quam satis novi his literis hortor mando c. I intreat and Command you vice meâ sungamini
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
Confirmation 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of laying on of hands meaneth Confirmation and not Absolution nor Ordination 10 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church 13 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 ss 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism 20. b. Friers Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation though they were but Presbyters 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation 25 26. b. The Ceremonies of it 24 25. b. Of the change made in us by it 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism 29. b. The reason was because few were then baptized but adult persons ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years 29 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled 32. b. Conscience That authority is most effectual which is seated there 160 § 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed Pref. to Discourse of Repentance The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration 781 n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention ibid. Consequent The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent 679 n. 62. Consignare Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church 20. b. Contrition A description of Contrition 829 n. 28 29. The efficacy of it in repentance 670 n. 61. What it is 821 n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act 829 n. 31. 1 Corinth Chap. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 58 § 9. and 11.29 Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained 218 § 8. and 898. and 6.12 expl 619 n. 23. and 10.23 ibid. and 2.14 expl 723 n. 53. and 785 n. 44. and 11.27 expl 814 n. 59. 2 Corinth Chap. 15.21 expl 712 n. 15. and 12.21 expl 803 n. 12. and 1.21 22. Now he which confirmeth us and hath anointed and sealed expl 28. b. Corporal Austerities Or penances 858 n. 111. They are not simply necessary ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance 846 n. 75. How they are to be used 846 847 n. 76 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary 847 n. 78 79. Covenant Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works 588 n. 7. Councils Presbyters had not the power of voting in them 136 § 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. Presbyters as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council Act. 15. p. 137 § 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained 147 § 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council 150 § 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past 290. c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself 267 § 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils 392 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council but in France and Germany none at all 392. General Councils not infallible 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding 393. How to know which are General Councils 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils who not 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. What if two parties call each their Council 395. How shall the decision be in a Council if the Bishops be divided in their opinions 395. Who hath power to call a general Council 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds ibid. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem mentioned Act. 15. p. 948 n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical 948 § 6. per tot Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one 991 n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation 986 987 988 989 ad fin sect Saint Augustine teacheth that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops 991 n. 8. The Roman Council under
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sed bonum opus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title but a good Office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Julius â—ollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angels and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church the Angel for his excellency of the Church for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence the Bishop and in descent of time it came to pass that the compellation which was alwayes his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls * And besides this so fair a Copy besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the Prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have shewn before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for Saint Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and fair congruity of reason SECT XXV Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cum Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so follows in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most blessed and worthy Pastor * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis urbibus convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the Pastors and not only so but Presbyters were not called Pastors for he proceeds sed Presbyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem convenerunt So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincials be wanting he must be certified by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis sititis c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called Pastores magni Great Shepherds or Pastors * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui saith Theodoret They wept for the loss of their Pastor And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity Et Pastorem inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a Pastor a Bishop certainly for himself was a Priest and his commands we follow But I need not specifie any more particular instances I touch'd upon it before He that shall consider that to Bishops the Regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first and the Presbyters were but his Assistants in Cities and Villages and were admitted in partem soll citudinis first casually and cursorily and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided and endowed will easily see that this word Pastor must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intrusted first solely then in communication with others but alwayes principally * But now of late especially
been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon And Vigor Episcopalis and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoyns calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis to the top or height of Episcopacy Apices Principes omnium so Optatus calls Bishops the Chief and Head of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prelate or Prefect of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Governs the Church in that place * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat Saint Sylvester the Bishop held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose Honor Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers and are made their Subjects and in the next Chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop c. * The other is of S. Hierom Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all there will be as many Schisms as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of them then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority and all the whole Diocess are his subjects viz. in regimine Spirituali SECT XXXV Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity BUT from words let us pass to things For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience Universal obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin again with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gain by it for the more Primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man But to our business S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis So the Latin of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye do you should attempt nothing without your Bishop And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo in nullo illi refragari It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop and in nothing to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam sic vos sine Episcopo nec Diaconus nec Laiconus nec Laicus Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium quod enim tale est Deo inimicum Here is obedience universal both in respect of things and persons and all this no less than absolutely necessary For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things saying of my self I can do nothing so nor you without your Bishop whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Layman Let nothing please you which the Bishop
the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church This is sufficient to shew to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publick disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and fair arguments of honour but was only in a meer spiritual estimate and ten thousand real disadvantages This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valere potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in Heaven be fair precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an Altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power and government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch and in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the most Reverend Bishops cried out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited Tertullian is something more particular and instances in Baptism Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So far the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harm done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate But the next words do of themselves make answer Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so says Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopal license Whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority If any man shall make assemblies privately and out of the Church so despising the Church or shall do any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by the decree of a Bishop let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop and then the assembly is lawful And this thing was so known that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter aut dissimulantes audacter praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopal license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare ipse honori suo contrarius existit All the Bishop said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remain under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals but extends it self to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way not submitting to their Bishop Let them be punished Canonically So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their
several offices the Canon extends its prohibition to all ministrations without the Bishops authority But it was more clearly and evidently law and practice in the Roman Church we have good witness for it S. Leo the Bishop of that Church is my Author Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris in baptisterium introire nec praesente Antistite infantem tingere aut signare nec poenitentem sine praeceptione Episcopi sui reconciliare nec eo praesente nisi illo jubente Sacramentum corporis Sanguinis Christi conficere nec eo corà m posito populum docere vel benedicere c. It is not lawful for the Presbyters to enter into the baptistery nor to baptize any Catechumens nor to consecrate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood in the presence of the Bishop without his command From this place of S. Leo if it be set in conjunction with the precedent we have fair evidence of this whole particular It is not lawful to do any offices without the Bishops leave So S. Ignatius so the Canons of the Apostles so Tertullian so the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon It is not lawful to do any offices in the Bishops presence without leave so S. Leo. The Council of Carthage joyns them both together neither in his presence nor without his leave in any place Now against this practice of the Church if any man should discourse as S. Hierome is pretended to do by Gratian Qui non vult Presbyteros facere quae jubentur à Deo dicat quis major est Christo. He that will not let Presbyters do what they are commanded to do by God let him tell us if any man be greater than Christ viz. whose command it is that Presbyters should preach Why then did the Church require the Bishop's leave might not Presbyters do their duty without a license This is it which the practice of the Church is abundantly sufficient to answer * For to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole Diocess he it is that must give the highest account for the whole charge he it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock so the Canon of the 1 Apostles so 2 Ignatius to the Council of 3 Antioch so every where The Presbyters are admitted in partem solicitudinis but still the jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per traditionem subditorum although the Presbyter by his ordination have a capacity of preaching and administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixt And therefore it is that a Presbyter may not do these acts without the Bishops leave because they are actions of relation and suppose a congregation to whom they must be administred or some particular person for a Priest must not preach to the stones as some say Venerable Bede did nor communicate alone the word is destructive of the thing nor baptize unless he have a Chrysome Child or a Catechumen So that all of the Diocess being the Bishops charge the Bishop must either authorize the Priest or the Priest must not meddle lest he be what S. Peter blamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop in anothers Diocess Not that the Bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing of consecrating c. For these he had by his ordination but that in giving license he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions and did quoad hoc take him in partem solicitudinis and concredit some part of his Diocess to his administration cum cura animarum But then on the other side because the whole cure of the Diocess is in the Bishop he cannot exonerate himself of it for it is a burden of Christs imposing or it is not imposed at all therefore this taking of Presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power or any part of it nor yet ease him of his care but that as he must still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 visit and see to his Diocess so he hath authority still in all parts of his Diocess and this appears in these places now quoted insomuch as when the Bishop came to any place there the Vicaria of the Presbyters did cease In praesentiâ Majoris cessat potestas minoris And though because the Bishop could not do all the Minor and daily offices of the Priesthood in every congregation of his Diocess therefore he appointed Priests severally to officiate himself looking to the Metropolis and the daughter Churches by a general supravision yet when the Bishop came into any place of his Diocess there he being present might do any office because it was in his own charge which he might concredit to another but not exonerate himself of it And therefore praesente Episcopo saith the Council of Carthage and S. Leo if the Bishop be present the Presbyter without leave might not officiate For he had no subjects of his own but by trust and delegation and this delegation was given him to supply the Bishops absence who could not simul omnibus interesse but then where he was present the cause of delegation ceasing the jurisdiction also ceased or was at least absorpt in the greater and so without leave might not be exercised like the stars which in the noon-day have their own natural light as much as in the night but appear not shine not in the presence of the Sun This perhaps will seem uncouth in those Presbyters who as the Council of Carthage's expression is are contrarii honori Episcopali but yet if we keep our selves in our own form where God hath placed us and where we were in the Primitive Church we shall find all this to be sooth and full of order For Consider The elder the prohibition was the more absolute and indefinite it runs Without the Bishop it is not lawful to baptize to consecrate c. So Ignatius The prohibition is without limit But in descent of the Church it runs praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present they must not without leave The thing is all one and a derivation from the same original to wit the Vniversality of the Bishops Jurisdiction but the reason of the difference of expression is this At first Presbyters were in Cities with the Bishop and no parishes at all concredited to them The Bishops lived in Cities the Presbyters preached and offered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from house to house according as the Bishop directed them Here they had no ordinary charge and therefore the first prohibitions run indefinitely they must not do any Clerical offices sine Episcopo unless the Bishop sends them But then afterwards when the Parishes were distinct and the Presbyters fixt upon ordinary charges then it was only praesente Episcopo if the Bishop was present they might not officiate without leave For in his absence they might do
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self is almost 1100 years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law De consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not always go together and also several Orders had several manners of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they
security and revenge 2dly As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty and what they could not receive from publick decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion than a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been when the frequency of general Councils and provincial Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretals of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years or else they must be forced to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrencies of the Church unless either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constituted do not aid him but in all these cases the Presbyter is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity failed and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I mean in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Jerusalem but they were not consulted in Church affairs and matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass And thus it is to this day In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and counsel in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that he that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down than in raising up It was wont always to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution than its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodal sentence and determination for so the Canon runs qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui sed praesentati Synodali Judicio quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their own Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be clancular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept lest the sentence should be clandestine and so illegal but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi The Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy even by this Canon it self which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our process for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the main question SECT XLV So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self now from the same principles let us see what it is to
when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell he did it to teach us a duty Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop * To these I add If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthronization Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae praeparatae ut Thronus speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne ** The sum of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our duties and their work deserves it Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formosi pedes Evangelizantium the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous and then much more of the chief Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos ut animas vestras diligatis ut quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c. Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more than amicitia that 's amongst Peers but love to our Betters is Reverence Obedience and high Estimate And if we have the one the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence I end this with the saying of Saint Ignatius Et vos decâ—t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem illi impertiri Reverentiam It is the will of God the Father that we should give all Reverence Honour or veneration to our Bishops SECT XLIX And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest WELL However things are now it was otherwise in the old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions and imployments of greatest trust For it was great consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors and great Dictators of faith and conscience should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination a Divine wisdom and interests of Conscience and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick which must be indulged to a private personal necessity But we have not Saint Paul's example only but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church Who are they The Clergy I am sure now adayes But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges For by least esteemed he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity they would most certainly have done very strange justice especially in such causes which they understand not No but set them to judge who by their office are Servants and Ministers of all and those are the Clergy who as Saint Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Jesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Jesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam Yea but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus Saint Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was to be the man though till then in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of ingagements in Rebus Saeculi So the sixth Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himself worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is general No worldly cares Not domestick But how if they come on him by Divine imposition or accident That 's nothing if he does not assume them that is by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sin But if he seeks it for it self it is ambition In this sence also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it self but the illness of the intention and this indeed she expresly forbids in her Canons Pervenit ad Sanctam
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else * But for the main Question Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus far Saint Ambrose * Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba President in the Nicene Council said it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affairs Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity To these add the Council of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire Aliter à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants but the Bishop unless the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must hear the cause but no Lay-Judges by any means * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict for so Justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already Sect. 36. and Sect. 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the Latine for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four for to pretend such slight aery imaginations against the constant known open Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church and History of all ages is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge Antiquity for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would fain have been it is known so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either Divine or Humane but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the Lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the nearest denomination The Objection is from Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine especially they therefore all Elders do not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are Governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Paul's sence not so much to do one as to do the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not Saint Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same Order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the Office and therefore the sence of the words is this That all Presbyters must be honoured but especially they that Prophesie doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Add to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born
this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters Innocentius III a great Canonist and of great authority gives a full evidence in this particular Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur quia per eam Spirituâ— Sanctus per augmentum datur robur Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere idest Episcopus conferre By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest that is the Bishop And therefore to the Question What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had the same Innocentius answers It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in operâ— veritas autem non subeat in essectu for it iâ— a mere shadow without truth or real effect when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion from whence Thomas of Walden says that Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times I have already I hope sufficiently declared what it was afterwards when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate per Pontificem verò in Fronte ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum in secunda quoque ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis scientiae virtutis venire in hominem declaretur Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret illustraret nunc in hominem ad hoc venit ut Signaculum fidei quod in fronte suscepit faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum suâ gratiâ confortatum intrepidè audacter coram Regibus Potestatibus hujus seculi portare ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head in Confirmation on the Forehead by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit with his seven-fold Gifts with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony but the Rites were ever distinguished and did not only signifie and declare but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd and gave in what circumstances they would chuse and new propositions entred and customs chang'd and deputations were made and the Bishops in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded it may be more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation it came to pass that new opinions were enterâ—ain'd and the Regulars the Friers and the Jesuits who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power from which they would fain have been wholly exempted publickly taught in England especially that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation For as Tertullian complain'd in his time Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi eoâ— necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines These men to serve ends destroyed the Article and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris and the Censure well defended by Hallier one of the Doctors of the Sorbon whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things But for the main It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis impositio manuum Episcoporum which our English word well expresses and perfectly retains the use we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children I shall no farther insist upon it only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law of a Minister ordinary and extraordinary all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery and disparks the inclosures and lays all in common and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God and relies upon a false Principle for in true Divinity and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment there can be none but the ordinary Minister I do not say that God is tied to this way he cannot be tied but by himself and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man But this I say That though God can make Ministers extraordinary yet Man cannot and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher which is the case of Confirmation by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church by which Bishops only the Successors of the Apostles were alone the Ministers of Confirmation and therefore if any man else usurp it let them answer it they do hurt indeed to themselves but no benefit to others to whom
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for
Confessor are the great demonstration to all the world that Truth is as Dear to your MAJESTY as the Jewels of your Diadem and that your Conscience is tender as a pricked eye I shall pretend this only to alleviate the inconvenience of an unseasonable address that I present your MAJESTY with a humble persecuted truth of the same constitution with that condition whereby you are become most Dear to God as having upon you the characterism of the Sons of God bearing in your Sacred Person the marks of the Lord Jesus who is your Elder Brother the King of Sufferings and the Prince of the Catholick Church But I consider that Kings and their Great Councils and Rulers Ecclesiastical have a special obligation for the defence of Liturgies because they having the greatest Offices have the greatest needs of auxiliaries from Heaven which are best procured by the publick Spirit the Spirit of Government and Supplication And since the first the best and most solemn Liturgies and Set forms of Prayer were made by the best and greatest Princes by Moses by David and the Son of David Your MAJESTY may be pleased to observe such a proportion of circumstances in my laying this Apology for Liturgy at Your feet that possibly I may the easier obtain a pardon for my great boldness which if I shall hope for in all other contingencies I shall represent my self a person indifferent whether I live or die so I may by either serve God and Gods Church and Gods Vicegerent in the capacity of Great Sir Your Majesties most humble and most obedient Subject and Servant JER TAYLOR Hierocl in Pythag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An APOLOGY for Authorized and Set Forms of LITVRGY I Have read over this Book which the Assembly of Divines is pleased to call The Directory for Prayer I confess I came to it with much expectation and was in some measure confident I should have found it an exact and unblameable model of Devotion free from all those Objections which men of their own perswasion had obtruded against the Publick Liturgie of the Church of England or at least it should have been composed with so much artifice and fineness that it might have been to all the world an argument of their learning and excellency of spirit if not of the goodness and integrity of their Religion and purposes I shall give no other character of the whole but that the publick disrelish which I find amongst Persons of great piety of all qualities not only of great but even of ordinary understandings is to me some argument that it lies so open to the objections even of common spirits that the Compilers of it did intend more to prevail by the success of their Armies than the strength of reason and the proper grounds of perswasion which yet most wise and good Men believe to be the more Christian way of the two But because the judgment I made of it from an argument so extrinsecal to the nature of the thing could not reasonably enable me to satisfie those many Persons who in their behalf desired me to consider it I resolv'd to look upon it nearer and to take its account from something that was ingredient to its Constitution that I might be able both to exhort and convince the Gainsayers who refuse to hold fast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that faithful word which they had been taught by their Mother the Church of England Sect. 2. I SHALL decline to speak of the efficient cause of this Directory and not quarrel at it that it was composed against the Laws both of England and all Christendom If the thing were good and pious and did not directly or accidentally invade the rights of a just Superiour I would learn to submit to the imposition and never quarrel at the incompetency of his authority that ingaged me to do pious and holy things And it may be when I am a little more used to it I shall not wonder at a Synod in which not one Bishop sits in the capacity of a Bishop though I am most certain this is the first example in England since it was first Christened But for the present it seems something hard to digest it because I know so well that all Assemblies of the Church have admitted Priests to consultation and dispute but never to authority and decision till the Pope enlarging the phylacteries of the Archimandrites and Abbots did sometime by way of priviledge and dispensation give to some of them decisive voices in publick Councils but this was one of the things in which he did innovate and invade against the publick resolutions of Christendom though he durst not do it often and yet when he did it it was in very small and inconsiderable numbers Sect. 3. I SAID I would not meddle with the Efficient and I cannot meddle with the Final cause nor guess at any other ends and purposes of theirs than at what they publickly profess which is the abolition and destruction of the Book of Common Prayer which great change because they are pleased to call Reformation I am content in charity to believe they think it so and that they have Zelum Dei but whether secundum scientiam according to knowledge or no must be judg'd by them who consider the matter and the form Sect. 4. BUT because the matter is of so great variety and minute Consideration every part whereof would require as much scrutiny as I purpose to bestow upon the whole I have for the present chosen to consider only the form of it concerning which I shall give my judgment without any sharpness or bitterness of spirit for I am resolved not to be angry with any men of another perswasion as knowing that I differ just as much from them as they do from me Sect. 5. THE Directory takes away that Form of Prayer which by the aâ—â—hority and consent of all the obliging power of the Kingdom hath been used and enjoyned ever since the Reformation But this was done by men of differing spirits and of disagreeing interests Some of them consented to it that they might take away all set forms of prayer and give way to every mans spirit the other that they might take away this Form and give way and countenance to their own The first is an enemy to all deliberation The Second to all authority They will have no man to deliberate These would have none but themselves The former are unwise and rash the latter are pleased with themselves and are full of opinion They must be considered apart for they have rent the Question in pieces and with the fragment in his hand every man hath run his own way question 1 Sect. 6. FIRST of them that deny all set forms though in the subject matter they were confessed innocent and blameless Sect. 7. AND here I consider that the true state of the Question is only this Whether it is better to pray to God with Consideration or without Whether is the wiser
custom of the Church was for them who were in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Pulpit to read their offices and devotions They read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the word in the Canon Those things which signifie the greatest or first Antiquity are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was spoken proverbially to signifie ancient things And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians the singers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity which also is the more credible because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment as a thing known by so long an use till it came to be their appellative * The 17th and 18th Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Liturgy that 's the word or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists and Readers they did not sing or say ex tempore but they read Prayers and Psalms and sung them out of a Book neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still the same form of prayers without variation Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he does dictate the hymns to the singers and then of the singers there is no question and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Their office was the same with the Reader they did ex praescripto praeire ad verbum referre the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece The first read out of a Book the appointed prayers and the others rehearsed them after Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office and no publick office be described Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more and pass on ad alia And that is that I never yet saw any instance example or pretence of precedent of any Bishop Priest or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church and although in some places single Bishops or peradventure other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their own into the Church yet ever they were compositions and premeditations and were brought thither there to be repeated often and added to the Liturgy and although the Liturgies while they were less full than since they have been were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons yet the inconvenience grew so great by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit that the Church as She always had forms of publick Prescription so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets and such Spirits when they are once tried whether they be of God or no tryed by a lawful superiour and a competent Judge may then venture into the open air And it were a strange imprudence choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt and declar'd and remedied For why should we be in love with that evil against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches by the provision and defence of Laws For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason follows Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners Their reason is good and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personal concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two daies before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone The Church hath 1 power and authority and 2 command 3 and ability or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy and 4 the Church always did so in all descents from Moses to Christ from Christ to the Apostles from them all to all descending Ages for I have instanced till St. Austin's time and since there is no Question the people were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion they used unalterable forms of Prayers described out of the Books of publick Liturgy it remains only that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so and whether she did well or no In order to which I consider Sect. 97. FIRST Every man hath personal needs of his own and he that understands his own condition and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity his temporal estate in order to justice and charity and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health and his health in order to the service of God as every wise and good man does will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities as he can do for his own caeteris paribus no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man and therefore if he have proportionable abilities it is allowed to him and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God and he can best express his own sence or at least best sigh forth his own meaning and if he be a good
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charged with all 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency or suppose personal excellencies Add to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seven Churches had but seven stars and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one star they must mean many stars and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as stars and no more Angels than Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000 as every star into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the exigency of the thing it self these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches and their names are commemorated Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equal number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and again Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Polycarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angel to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had been and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a Treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetual and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personal mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments of Absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores postea illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountains and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains For though Christ also ordained the LXXII yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolical authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not
is most plentiful Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio dicit Petro c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops and the Church is built upon them and every action of the Church is to be governed by them and this is founded upon a Divine law Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contra nos audere Diaconi à quibus fiunt We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirms there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelical power did institute that calling for the modus of whose election it took such particular order S. Ignatius long before him speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Jesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearful thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceivable God For this contumely relates not to man but to God So S. Ignatius which could not be true were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them This is plain and dogmatical I would be loth to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speak half so much against us But it is a general resolve and no private opinion For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his ascension into Heaven he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops But long before him Hegesippus going to Rome and by the way calling in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit Prophetae indicaverunt Et Dominus Statuit All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed All things therefore both of doctrine and discipline and therefore the ordinations themselves too Further yet and it is worth observing there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated that the order of Bishops did come from God S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis certum a true and certain or indeleble character secundùm placitum Patris according to the will of God the Father And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit God from whom all good things do come did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop And again Honor igitur Fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares c. And a little after Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence and is by God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasce oves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have pastoral or Episcopal authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were divers others there present therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councils of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sextus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi
wanting or amiss to silence vain prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordain elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithful for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. 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 superiours SECT XXI Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters BUT a Council or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom 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 S. Hierom which I will set down here that we may leave the Sun without a cloud S. Jerome's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is clear that S. Hierome 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 Quâ—d facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordain a Bishop does which is a clear difference of power and by S. Hierome 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 S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary and by actual indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and original right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome 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 S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd 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 S. Hierome 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 S. Hierome complained of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference That then if Saint Hierome says true being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate * Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. 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 S. 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 shew hereafter but because he intends so far as may be guessed by his words a parity and
yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops unless it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the General address which in all fair deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearly show that the confusion of names of Episcopus and Presbyter such as it is in Scripture is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture for the indistinction of Offices for even the names in Scripture it self are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop and Apostle is often called a Presbyter as in the instances above But we will consider those places of Scripture which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name to confusion of things and shew that they neither enterfere upon the main Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints which are in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to chuse this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could * not be and yet Saint Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the Church of Philippi * and therefore must mean mere * Presbyters so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superiour Order of the Clergy Bishops and Priests and that he speaks plurally he may besides the Bishops in the Church comprehend under their name the Presbyters too for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office and order the inferiour under the superiour the lesser within the greater for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order and is not only inclusively in it but derivative from it the same name may comprehend both persons because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both And in this sence it is if it be at all that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops * 2. Why may not Bishops be understood properly For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church It can neither be proved from Scripture nor Antiquity if it were denyed For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch might do all that Presbyters could and much more And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply and a Bishop can it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter than that there was no Bishop And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be only meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sence and yet no more Bishops in one Diocess than one of a fixt residence for in that sence is Saint Chrysostom and the Fathers to be understood in their Commentaries on this place affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop but then take this along that it was not then unusual in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary Residentiaries but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority as in the Churches of Jerusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it self if I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus Titus Demas Polybius omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo unde haec vobis scripsi saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon So that many Bishops we see might be at Philippi and many were actually there long after Saint Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sence Because there could not be more Bishops than one in a Diocess No By what Law If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times that hinders not but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times If by a Law in the Apostles times then we have obtained the main Question by the shift and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters And then let this Objection be admitted how it will and do its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had divers Bishopricks under it and Saint Paul writing to the Church of Philippi wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit and therefore might well salute many Bishops though writing to one Metropolis and this is the more probable if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopis Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of Cum Episcopis Diaconis to Saint Paul and Saint Timothy intimating that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from Saint Paul and Saint Timothy with â—he Bishops and Deacons so that the reading must be thus Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons to all the Saints at Philippi c. Cum Episcopis Diaconis hoc est cum Paulo Timotheo qui utique Episcopi erant simul significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei Ad plebem enim scribit Nam si Episcopis scriberet Diaconis ad personas eorum scriberet loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat non duobus vel tribus sicut ad Titum Timotheum * 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians which may give another light to this speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision which no man imagines of what interest soever he be it follows then that Bishops and Deacons are no more but Mâ—jores and Minores Sacerdotes in both places for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I think it will easily be shewn in Scripture that the word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters than to those Ministers whiâ—h now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now again to
chief Bishops assembled in the Council of Antioch in quibus erant Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Nicomas ab Iconio Hierosolymorum praecipuus Sacerdos Hymenaeus vicinae huic urbis Cesareae Theotecnus and in the same place the Bishops of Pontus are called Ponti provinciae Sacerdotes Abilius apud Alexandriam tredecim annis Sacerdotio ministrato diem obiit for so long he was Bishop cui succedit Cerdon tertius in Sacerdotium Et Papias similiter apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens for he was Bishop of Hierapolis saith Eusebius and the Bishop of the Province of Arles speaking of their first Bishop Trophimus ordained Bishop by S. Peter says quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit Sacerdotem *** The Bishop also was ever design'd when Antistes Ecclesiae was the word Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes saith Eusebius out of Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the name in Greek and used for the Bishop by Justin Martyr and is of the same authority and use with Praelatus and praepositus Ecclesiae Antistes autem Sacerdos dictus ab eo quod antestat Primus est enim in ordine Ecclesiae supra se nullum habet saith S. Isidore *** But in those things which are of no Question I need not insist One title more I must specify to prevent misprision upon a mistake of theirs of a place in S. Ambrose The Bishop is sometimes called Primus Presbyter Nam Timotheum Episcopum à se creatum Presbyterum vocat quia Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Elections were made of Bishops out of the colledge of Presbyters Presbyteri unum ex se electum Episcopum nominabant saith S. Hierome but at first this election was made not according to merit but according to seniority and therefore Bishops were called Primi Presbyteri that 's S. Ambrose his sence But S. Austin gives another Primi Presbyteri that is chief above the Presbyters Quid est Episcopus nisi Primus Presbyter h. e. summus Sacerdos saith he And S. Ambrose himself gives a better exposition of his words than is intimated in that clause before Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est Vterque enim Sacerdos est sed Episcopus Primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non omnis Presbyter Episcopus Hic enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros Primus est The Bishop is Primus Presbyter that is Primus Sacerdos h. e. Princeps est Sacerdotum so he expounds it not Princeps or Primus inter Presbyteros himself remaining a meer Presbyter but Princeps Presbyterorum for Primus Presbyter could not be Episcopus in another sence he is the chief not the senior of the Presbyters Nay Princeps Presbyterorum is used in a sence lower than Episcopus for Theodoret speaking of S. John Chrysostome saith that having been the first Presbyter at Antioch yet refused to be made Bishop for a long time Johannes enim qui diutissimè Princeps fuit Presbyterorum Antiochiae ac saepe electus praesul perpetuus vitator dignitatis illius de hoc admirabili solo pullulavit *** The Church also in her first language when she spake of Praepositus Ecclesiae meant the Bishop of the Diocess Of this there are innumerable examples but most plentifully in S. Cyprian in his 3 4 7 11 13 15 23 27 Epistles and in Tertullian his book ad Martyres and infinite places more Of which this advantage is to be made that the Primitive Church did generally understand those places of Scripture which speak of Prelates or Praepositi to be meant of Bishops Obedite praepositis Heb. 13. saith Saint Paul Obey your Prelates or them that are set over you Praepositi autem Pastores sunt saith Saint Austin Prelates are they that are Pastors But Saint Cyprian summes up many of them together and insinuates the several relations expressed in the several compellations of Bishops For writing against Florentius Pupianus ac nisi saith he apud te purgati fuerimus .... ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit Episcopum nec plebs praepositum nec grex Pastorem nec Ecclesia gubernatorem nec Christus antistitem nec Deus Sacerdotes and all this he means of himself who had then been six years Bishop of Carthage a Prelate of the people a governour to the Church a Pastor to the flock a Priest of the most high God a Minister of Christ. The summe is this When we find in antiquity any thing asserted of any order of the hierarchy under the names of Episcopus or Princeps Sacerdotum or Presbyterorum Primus or Pastor or Doctor or Pontifex or Major or Primus Sacerdos or Sacerdotium Ecclesiae habens or Antistes Ecclesiae or Ecclesiae sacerdos unless there be a specification and limiting of it to a parochial and inferior Minister it must be understood of Bishops in its present acceptation For these words are all by way of eminency and most of them by absolute appropriation and singularity the appellations and distinctive names of Bishops SECT XXVIII And these were a distinct Order from the rest BUT 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Philosopher and this their distinction of names did amongst the Fathers of the Primitive Church denote a distinction of calling and office supereminent to the rest For first Bishops are by all antiquity reckoned as a distinct office of Clergy Si quis Presbyter aut Diaconus aut quilibet de numero Clericorum .... pergat ad alienam parochiam praeter Episcopi sui conscientiam c. So it is in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles and so it is there plainly distinguished as an office different from Presbyter and Deacon above thirty times in those Canons and distinct powers given to the Bishop which are not given to the other and to the Bishop above the other The Council of Ancyra inflicting censures upon Presbyters first then Deacons which had fallen in time of persecution gives leave to the Bishop to mitigate the pains as he sees cause Sed si ex Episcopis aliqui in iis vel afflictionem aliquam .... â—iderint in eorum potestate id esse The Canon would not suppose any Bishops to fall for indeed they seldome did but for the rest provision was made for both their penances and indulgence at the discretion of the Bishop And yet sometimes they did fall Optatus bewails it but withal gives evidence of their distinction of order Quid commemorem Laicos qui tunc in Ecclesiâ nullâ â—uerant dignitate suffulti Quid Ministros plurimos quid Diaconos in tertio quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos Ipsi apices Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divinae Legis impiè tradiderunt The Laity the Ministers the Deacons the Presbyters nay the Bishops
mislikes for all such things are wicked and in enmity with God * But it seems Saint Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to We have already reckoned the Trallians and the Magnesians But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop The same to the Philadelphians Sine Episcopo nihil facite Do nothing without your Bishop But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Sine Episcopo nemo quicquam faciat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant No man may do any thing without the Bishop viz. of those things which belong to the Church So that this saying expounds all the rest for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sence of the Church viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance all Church-affairs And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarp their Bishop that he also look to it that nothing be done without hiâ— leave Nihil sine tuo Arbitrio agatur nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem As thou must do nothing against Gods will so let nothing in the Church be done without thine By the way observe he says not that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop so the Bishop nothing without them But so the Bishop nothing without God But so it is Nothing must be done without the Bishop And therefore although he incourages them that can to remain in Virginity yet this if it be either done with pride or without the Bishop it is spoiled For Si gloriatus fuerit periit si id ipsum statuatur sine Episcopo corruptum est His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarp is with an Episcopo attendite sicut Deus vobis The way to have God to take care of us is to observe our Bishop Hinc vos decet accedere Sententiae Episcopi qui secundum Deum vos pascit quemadmodum facitis edocti à spiritu You must therefore câ—â—form to the sentence of the Bishop as indeed ye do already being taught so to do by Gods holy Spirit There needs no more to be said in this cause if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden What the man was I said before what these Epistles are and of what authority let it rest upon Vedelius a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of Eusebius S. Hierome and Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for natural and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should do well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair and see what is gotten in the bargain For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Jurisdiction But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summs them up thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Council is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo quasi animae parentem suscipe It is the counsel of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soul. I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men God hath intrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergie in matters Spiritual with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must govern the Church or else the Clergie must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny To say that the Laity should govern the Church when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it says for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who are so called * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferiour to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them with whom their Souls are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councils and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chief and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance but ever in subordination to the Bishop the Laity must obey de integro For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them But for the main S. Clement in his Epistle to S. James translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ That Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle That Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergie must take heed that they do nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this business up compleat all these authorites of
clearly and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them Plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ Apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius and does not break him with his Apostolical rod that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of the Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Room * But their Grandfather was served no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consiliis nitebatur Cum vero eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonished the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserved it highly It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personal misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus Who was punished by Triferius the Bishop Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit ei relaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complained to the Council by the Council might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power * These are particular instances and made publick by acts conciliary intervening * But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allows I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonical penalty and so go on ad alia In the second Council of Carthage Alypius Episcopus dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means go unpunished The like is in the Council of Chalcedon the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemn and they have power to do what they please other faith than this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their own Bishops although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie and suspend them and sometimes depose them Nay they are bound to it Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet ne per plures serpant dira contagia separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound lest their infection scatter so S. Austin And therefore the fourth Council of Carthage commands Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
The instances of this are just so many as there are Councils S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith Si judicium Episcoporum est saith he quid cum eo commune habet Imperator It is a judgment to be passed by Bishops meaning the determination of the article and not proper for the Emperor And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting President in a Council Quis enim videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Episcoporum non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis He that sits President makes himself chief of the Bishops c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councils and to make decision And therefore conventus Episcoporum and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General and Provincial Councils Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur said the 38 Canon of the Apostles and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter Ob quam causam saith Eusebius conventus Episcoporum Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur Where by the way it is observable that at first even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops and Presbyters had no interest in the decision however we have of late sate so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this To them I leave it And because the four general Councils are the Precedents and chief of all the rest I shall only instance in them for this particular 1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons for if they had been more the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mystical number Nam Abraham trecentos decem octo duxit ad bellum De Conciliis id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem octo Sacerdotes velut trophaeum extulerunt ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum quod eodem numero in Conciliis fidei habemus oraculum quo in historiâ pietatis exemplum Well! 318 was the Number of the Judges the Nicene Fathers and they were all Bishops for so is the title of the subscriptions Subscripserunt trecenti decem octo Episcopi qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt 13 whereof were Chorespiscopi but not one Presbyter save only that Vitus and Vincentius subscribed as Legates of the Bishop of Rome but not by their own authority 2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the title of the Canons The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in G. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking Imperator saith he nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium Episcoporum convocat Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader and about some four or five more * This only amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus Auxanon Helladius and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies They were Bishops saith the title of the Council and the Oration and the Canons and Socrates And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae because before Johannes Apameensis subscribed which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop and the other but a Presbyter indeed without a subterfuge of modesty the titles distinguish them For John was Bishop in the Province of Caelo Syria and Auxanon of Apamâ—a in Pisidia 3. The third was the Council of Ephesus Episcoporum plurium quà m ducentorum as it is often said in the acts of the Council of above 200 Bishops but no Presbyters for Cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops saith the Council and Theodosius junior in his Epistle to the Synod Illicitum est saith he eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be interess'd in Ecclesiastical assemblies 4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia But in all these assemblies no meer Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop and delegation of authority And therefore when in this Council some Laicks and some Monks and some Clergie-men not Bishops would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force Si praeter nostram evocationem aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur Who come without command of the Empress or the Bishops permission Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist to dispute and to be present in all the action And thus they often did suffer Abbots or Archimandrites to be there and to subscribe too but that was praeter regulam and by indulgence only and condescension For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered Non suum esse sed Episcoporum tantum subscribere It belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Councils For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council Mitte foras superfluos Concilium Episcoporum est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Council we know savour'd too much of the Schismatick but before this Council no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenical or Provincial Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenical nor Provincial but meerly the Convocation of a Diocess For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more than a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seventh Canon of that assembly Vt in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent that was their summons Et in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention the greatest of
for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we mark it our Blessed Saviour points it out himself The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporal Regiment your Apostolate must be Spiritual They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or Servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the son of man so Christ sayes expresly And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the son of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spiritual superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospel and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the Septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this we know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism It is clear that the form of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the son of man so must your Regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae saith Origen And Saint Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chief the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey They must govern not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a Spiritual not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So Saint Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio consulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the Regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spiritual the other secular And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdoms by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sin if it continues and no sin if it lasts but for a week Or is it lawful to sin and domineer and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetual Dictators Calvin was perpetual President and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawful here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer and as they call it now adayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern But if the Apostles may govern then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may do the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easie to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority For inter se they might be equal and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so
the world 2. John Damascen and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abu'sd in this Question yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod and that makes the business more suspicious that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it a Latin Bishop a stranger not very well skill'd in Antiquity should find this out which no man ever saw before him nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works But in the second Nicene Council such forgeries as these were many and notorious S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de veneratione imaginum when it is notorious it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the error of the second Nicene Synod but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it And therefore they who set forth S. Basils works at Paris 1618. who either could not or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil without any mark of difference or note of inquiry There is also another saying of S. Basil of which the Roman writers make much and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil Imaginis honor exemplum transit which indeed S. Basil speaks only of the statues of the Emperors and of that civil honour which by consent and custome of the world did pass to the Emperor and he accepted it so but this is no argument for religious images put up to the honour of God he says not the honour of any such image passes to God for God hath declar'd against it as will appear in the following periods and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument no fair pretence and yet upon this very account and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners and the secular customs of the Empire the veneration of images came into Churches But suppose it be admitted to be true yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas aquinas and Bonaventures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists who make the worship to an image of a lower kind For if it be not the same worship then they that worship images worship God and his Saints by the image not as they deserve but give to them no more than the image it self deserves let them take which part they please so that they will but publickly own it But let this be as it will and let it be granted true that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler yet this is but an arbitrary thing and a King may esteem it so if he please but if the King forbids any image to be made of him and counts it a dishonour to him then I hope it is and that 's the case now for God hath forbidden any such way of passing honour to him by an image of him and he hath forbidden it in the second Commandment and this is confessed by Vasquez So that upon this account for all the pretence of the same motion to the image and the sampler to pass such a worship to God is no better than the doing as the Heathen did when they worshipped Mercury by throwing stones at him Another authority brought by E. W. for veneration of images is from Athanasius but himself damns it in the Margent with and without ingenuity for ingenuously saying that he does not affirm it to be the Great Athanasius yet most disingenuously he adds valeat quantum valere potest that is they that will be cosened let them And indeed these Questions and Answers to Antiochus are notoriously spurious for in them are quoted S. Epiphanius and Gregory Nyssen Chrysostom Scala Johannis Maximus and Nicephorus who were after Athanasius and the book is rejected by Delrio by Sixtus Senensis and Possevine But with such stuff as this the Roman Doctors are forc'd to build their Babel and E. W. in page 56. quotes the same book against me for worshipping the Cross together with another spurious piece de Cruce passione Domini which Nannius a very learned man of their own and professor at Lovaine rejects as it is to be seen in his Nuncupatory Epistle Yea but S. Chrysostoms Liturgy is very clear for it is said that the Priest turns himself to our Saviours picture and bows his head before the picture and says this prayer These words indeed are very plain but it is not plain that these are S. Chysostom's words for there are none such in S. Chrysostoms Liturgy in the Editions of it by Claudius de Saintes or Morellus and Claudius Espencaeus acknowledges with great truth and ingenuity that this Liturgy begun and compos'd by S. Chrysostom was inlarged by many things put into it according to the variety of times And it is evidently so because divers persons are there commemorated who liv'd after the death of Chrysostom as Cyrillus Euthymius Sabas and Johannes Eleemosynarius whereof the last but one lived 126. years the last 213. years after S. Chrysostom Now how likely nay how certain it is that this very passage was not put in by S. Chrysostom but is of later interpolation let all the world judge by that known saying of S. Chrysostom Quid enim est vilius atque humilius homine ante res inanimatas se incurvante saxa venerante What in the world is baser and more abject than to see a man worshipping stones and bowing himself before inanimate things These are his great authorities which are now come to nothing what he hath from them who came after these I shall leave to him to make his best of them for about the time of Gregory some began to worship images and some to break them the latter of which he reproves and the former he condemns what it was afterwards all the world knows But now having clear'd the Question from the trifling arguments of my adversaries I shall observe some things fit to be considered in this matter of images 1. It came at first from a very base and unworthy stock I have already pointed at this but now I shall explain it more fully it came from Simon Magus and his crew Theodoret says that the followers of Simon brought in the worship of images viz. of Simon in the shape of Jupiter and Helena in the figure of Minerva but S. Austin says that Simon Magus himself imagines suam cujusdam meretricis quam sibi sociam scelerum fecerat discipulis suis praebuisse adorandas E. W.
they affect weak minds that they seem to live and feel especially when the veneration of a multitude is added to it by which so great a worship is bestowed upon them Here is the danger and how much is contributed to it in the Church of Rome by clothing their Images in rich apparel and by pretending to make them nod their head to twinkle the eyes and even to speak the world is too much satisfied Some such things as these and the superstitious talkings and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the Image of our Lady of Kilbrony that a worthy Gentleman who is now with God and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents but carried away the Image of the female Saint of Kilbrony and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the Image was away and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom and were afraid that their Saint could not help them when her Image was away Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry by countenancing and justifying and imposing such acts which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from Idolatry I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore Images And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches it is evident in Ecclesiastical story that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat and Bertualdus Achbishop of Dover and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester the Virgin Mary appearing to him and commanding that her Image should be set in Churches and worshipped That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross and the Image of Christ Beda tells and from him Baronius and Binius affirms that before this vision of Egwin the Cross and Image of Christ were in use but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not and there is no record no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin and it further appears to be so because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man Master of Charles the Great when the King had sent to Offa the book of G. P. for the worship of Images wrote an Epistle against it Ex authoritate Divina scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatum and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings saith Hovedon SECT VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity AGAINST all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father or the Holy Trinity the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer That the Fathers intended by their sayings to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father or the Holy Ghost or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared To this I reply 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world A man cannot well understand an Essence and hath no Idea of it in his mind much less can a Painters Pencil do it And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise can make use of 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd is to picture him in no form at all for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this that God the Father never appear'd in his person for as S. Paul affirms he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see He always appeared by Angels or by fire or by storm and tempest by a cloud or by a still voice he spake by his Prophets and at last by his Son but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes one body with three heads and as an old man with a great beard and a Popes Crown upon his head and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head And therefore they worship the Images of God the Father and the Holy Trinity figures which as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses themselves have made which therefore must needs be Idols by their own definition of Idolum simulachrum rei non existentis for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity as they most impiously represent And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically they may of it make an Image to God they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out For as Durandus well observes If any one shall say that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms that therefore they may be represented by Images we must say to this that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit and therefore a representation of them by Images is not a representation of the Divine person but a representation of that form or shape alone Therefore there is no reverence due to it as there is none due to those forms by themselves Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons but to represent those effectâ— which those Divine persons did effect And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them â—hat do so They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man Now how will the Reader imagine that the Disswasive is confuted and his testimonies from Antiquity answered Why most clearly E. W. saith that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Well! what is this principle The words are these and S. Austin points at the same Quisnam est qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac
or the Judicial whether it were better to say God of his mercy pardon thee or by his authority committed to me I absolve thee and in Peter Lombards days when it was esteemed an innocent doctrine to say that the Priests power was only declarative it is likely the form of absolution would be according to the power believed which not being then universally believed to be Judicial the Judicial form could not be of universal use and in the Pontifical there is no Judicial form at all but only Optative or by way of prayer But in this affair besides what is already mentioned I have two great things to say which are a sufficient determination of this whole Article 54. I. The first is that in the Primitive Church there was no such thing as a judicial absolution of sins used in any Liturgy or Church so far as can appear but all the absolution of penitents which is recorded was the mere admitting them to the mysteries and society of the faithful in religious offices the summ and perfection of which was the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper So the fourth Council of Carthage Can. 76. makes provision for a penitent that is near death reconcilietur per manus impositionem infundatur ori ejus Eucharistia Let him be reconciled by the imposition of hands and let the Eucharist be poured into his mouth that was all the solemnity even when there was the greatest need of the Churches ministery that is before their penances and satisfactions were completed The Priest or Bishop laid his hands upon him and prayed and gave him the Communion For that this was the whole purpose of imposition of hands we are taught expresly by S. Austin who being to prove that imposition of hands viz. in repentance might be repeated though baptism might not uses this for an argument Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem It is nothing else but a Prayer said over the man And indeed this is evident and notorious in matter of fact for in the beginning and in the progression in the several periods of publick repentance and in the consummation of it the Bishop or the Priest did very often impose hands that is pray over the penitent as appears in Is. Ling. from the authority of the Gallican Councils Omni tempore jejuniis manus poenitentibus à Sacerdotibus imponantur And again Criminalia peccata multis jejuniis crebris manus sacerdotum impositionibus eorúmque supplicationibus juxta Canonum statuta placuit purgari Criminal that is great sins must according to the Canons be purged with much fasting and frequent impositions of the Priests hands and their supplications In every time or period of their fast let the Priests hands be laid upon the penitents that is let the Priests frequently pray with him and for him or over him The same with that which he also observes out of the Nicene Council Vultu capite humiliato humilitèr ex corde veniam postulent pro se orare exposcant that 's the intent of imposition of hands let the penitent humbly ask pardon that is desire that the holy man and all the Church would pray for him This in every stage or period of repentance was a degree of reconciliation for as God pardons a sinner when he gives him time to repent he pardons him in one degree that is he hath taken off that anger which might justly and instantly crush him all in pieces and God pardons him yet more when he exhorts him to repentance and yet more when he inclines him and as he proceeds so does God but the pardon is not full and final till the repentance is so too So does the Minister of repentance and pardon Those only are in the unpardoned state who are cut off from all entercourse in holy things with holy persons in holy offices when they are admitted to do repentance they are admitted to the state of pardon and every time the Bishop or Minister prays for him he still sets him forwarder towards the final pardon but then the penitent is fully reconciled on Earth when having done his repentance towards men that is by the commands of the Church he is admitted to the holy Communion and if that be sincerely done on the penitents part and this be maturely and prudently done on the Priests part as the repentance towards men was a repentance also towards God so the absolution before men is a certain indication of absolution before God But as to the main question Then the Church only did reconcile penitents when she admitted them to the Communion and therefore in the second Council of Carthage absolution is called reconciliari Divinis altaribus a being reconciled to the Altar of God and in the Council of Eliberis Communione reconciliari a being reconciled by receiving the Communion opposite to which in the same Canon is Communionem non accipiat he may not receive the Communion that is he shall not be absolved The same is to be seen in the eighth Canon of the Council of Ancyra in the second Canon of the Council of Laodicea in the 85 Epistle of P. Leo and the first Epistle of P. Vigilius and in the third Council of Toledo we find the whole process of binding and loosing described in these words Because we find that in certain Churches of Spain men do not according to the Canons but unworthily repent them of their sins that so often as they please to sin so often they desire of the Priest to be reconciled therefore for the restraining so execrable a presumption it is commanded by the holy Council that repentance should be given according to the form of the ancient Canons that is that he who repents him of his doings being first suspended from the Communion he should amongst the other penitents often run to the imposition of hands that is to the Prayers of the Bishop and the Church but when the time of his satisfaction is completed according as the Priests prudence shall approve let him restore him to the Communion That 's the absolution as the rejecting him from it was the binding him It was an excommunication from which when he was restored to the Communion he was loosed And this was so known so universal a practice and process of Ecclesiastical repentance that without any alteration as to the main inquiry it continued so in the Church to very many ages succeeding and it was for a long while together the custom of penitent people in the beginning of Lent to come voluntarily to receive injunctions of discipline and penitential offices from the Priest and to abstain from the holy Communion till they had done their penances and then by ceremonies and prayers to be restored to the Communion at Easter without any other form of Judicial absolution as is to be seen in Albinus and in the Roman Pontifical To which this consideration may be added That the
observable that no Heresies are noted signanter in Scripture but such as are great errours practical in materiâ pietatis such whose doctrines taught impiety or such who denyed the coming of Christ directly or by consequence not remote or withdrawn but prime and immediate And therefore in the Code de S. Trinitate fide Catholica Heresy is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wicked Opinion and an ungodly doctrine 3. The first false doctrine we find condemned by the Apostles was the opinion of Simon Magus who thought the Holy Ghost was to be bought with money he thought very dishonourably to the blessed Spirit but yet his followers are rather noted of a vice neither resting in the understanding nor derived from it but wholly practical 'T is simony not heresy though in Simon it was a false opinion proceeding from a low account of God and promoted by his own ends of pride and covetousness The great heresy that troubled them was the doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses the necessity of Circumcision against which doctrine they were therefore zealous because it was a direct overthrow to the very end and excellency of Christs coming And this was an opinion most pertinaciously and obstinately maintained by the Jews and had made a Sect among the Galathians and this was indeed wholly in opinion and against it the Apostles opposed two Articles of the Creed which served at several times according as the Jews changed their opinion and left some degrees of their errour I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe the holy Catholick Church For they therefore pressed the necessity of Moses Law because they were unwilling to forgo the glorious appellative of being Gods own peculiar people and that salvation was of the Jews and that the rest of the World were capable of that grace no otherwise but by adoption into their Religion and becoming proselytes But this was so ill a Doctrine as that it overthrew the great benefits of Christ's coming for if they were circumcised Christ profited them nothing meaning this that Christ will not be a Saviour to them who do not acknowledge him for their Law-giver and they neither confess him their Law-giver nor their Saviour that look to be justified by the Law of Moses and observation of legal rites so that this doctrine was a direct enemy to the foundation and therefore the Apostles were so zealous against it Now then that other opinion which the Apostles met at Jerusalem to resolve was but a piece of that opinion for the Jews and Proselytes were drawn off from their lees and sediment by degrees step by step At first they would not endure any should be saved but themselves and their Proselytes Being wrought off from this height by Miracles and preaching of the Apostles they admitted the Gentiles to a possibility of salvation but yet so as to hope for it by Moses Law From which foolery when they were with much ado perswaded and told that salvation was by Faith in Christ not by works of the Law yet they resolved to plow with an Oxe and an Ass still and joyn Moses with Christ not as shadow and substance but in an equal confederation Christ should save the Gentiles if he was helpt by Moses but alone Christianity could not do it Against this the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem and made a decision of the Question tying some of the Gentiles such only who were blended by the Jews in communi patria to observation of such Rites which the Jews had derived by tradition from Noah intending by this to satisfie the Jews as far as might be with a reasonable compliance and condescension the other Gentiles who were unmixt in the mean while remaining free as appears in the liberty S. Paul gave the Church of Corinth of eating Idol Sacrifices expresly against the Decree at Jerusalem so it were without scandal And yet for all this care and curious discretion a little of the leaven still remained All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles that it was totally impertinent to the Jews still they had a distinction to satisfie the letter of the Apostles Decree and yet to persist in their old opinion and this so continued that fifteen Christian Bishops in succession were circumcised even until the destruction of Jerusalem under Adrian as Eusebius reports 4. First By the way let me observe that never any matter of Question in the Christian Church was determined with greater solemnity or more full authority of the Church than this Question concerning Circumcision No less than the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and that with a Decree of the highest sanction Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Secondly Either the case of the Hebrews in particular was omitted and no determination concerning them whether it were necessary or lawful for them to be circumcised or else it was involv'd in the Decree and intended to oblige the Jews If it was omitted since the Question was de re necessaria for dico vobis I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gain the Jews and to comply with their violent prejudice in behalf of Moses Law did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re alioquin necessariâ which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after But if it was not omitted either all the multitude of the Jews which S. James then their Bishop expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou seest how many myriads of Jews that believe and yet are zelots for the Law and Eusebius speaking of Justus saies he was one ex infinitâ multitudine eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant I say all these did perish and their believing in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisie and heresie or if they were saved it is apparent how merciful God was and pitiful to humane infirmities that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weakness and pardon their errors and love their good mind since their prejudice was little less than insuperable and had fair probabilities at least it was such as might abuse a wise and good man and so it did many they did bono animo errare And if I mistake not this consideration S. Paul urged as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor of the Saints because he did it ignorantly in unbelief that is he was not convinced in his understanding of the truth of the way which he persecuted he in the mean while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeal therefore God had mercy on him And so it was in this great Question of circumcision here only was the difference the invincibility of S. Paul's error and
toy in respect of the excellent blessings of peace and charity it were good that Alexander and Arius should leave contending keep their opinions to themselves ask each other forgiveness and give mutual toleration This is the substance of Constantine's letter and it contains in it much reason if he did not undervalue the Question but it seems it was not then thought a question of Faith but of nicety of dispute they both did believe one God and the holy Trinity Now then that he afterward called the Nicene Council it was upon occasion of the vileness of the men of the Arian part their eternal discord and pertinacious wrangling and to bring peace into the Church that was the necessity and in order to it was the determination of the Article But for the Article it self the Letter declares what opinion he had of that and this Letter was by Socrates called a wonderful exhortation full of grave and sober counsels and such as Hosius himself who was the messenger pressed with all earnestness with all the skill and Authority he had 27. I know the opinion the world had of the Article afterward is quite differing from this censure given of it before and therefore they have put it into the Creed I suppose to bring the world to unity and to prevent Sedition in this Question and the accidental blasphemies which were occasioned by their curious talkings of such secret mysteries and by their illiterate resolutions But although the Article was determined with an excellent spirit and we all with much reason profess to believe it yet it is another consideration whether or no it might not have been better determined if with more simplicity and another yet whether or no since many of the Bishops who did believe this thing yet did not like the nicety and curiosity of expressing it it had not been more agreeable to the practice of the Apostles to have made a determination of the Article by way of Exposition of the Apostles Creed and to have lest this in a rescript for record to all posterity and not to have enlarged the Creed with it for since it was an Explication of an Article of the Creed of the Apostles as Sermons are of places of Scripture it was thought by some that Scripture might with good profit and great truth be expounded and yet the Expositions not put into the Canon or go for Scripture but that left still in the naked Original simplicity and so much the rather since that Explication was further from the foundation and though most certainly true yet not penn'd by so infallible a spirit as was that of the Apostles and therefore not with so much evidence as certainty And if they had pleased they might have made use of an admirable precedent to this and many other great and good purposes no less than of the blessed Apostles whose Symbol they might have imitated with as much simplicity as they did the Expressions of Scripture when they first composed it For it is most considerable that although in reason every clause in the Creed should be clear and so inopportune and unapt to variety of interpretation that there might be no place left for several sences or variety of Expositions yet when they thought fit to insert some mysteries into the Creed which in Scripture were expressed in so mysterious words that the last and most explicite sence would still be latent yet they who if ever any did understood all the sences and secrets of it thought it not fit to use any words but the words of Scripture particularly in the Articles of Christs descending into Hell and sitting at the right hand of God to shew us that those Creeds are best which keep the very words of Scripture and that Faith is best which hath greatest simplicity and that it is better in all cases humbly to submit than curiously to enquire and pry into the mystery under the cloud and to hazard our Faith by improving our knowledge If the Nicene Fathers had done so too possibly the Church would never have repented it 28. And indeed the experience the Church had afterwards shewed that the Bishops and Priests were not satisfied in all circumstances nor the schism appeased nor the persons agreed nor the Canons accepted nor the Article understood nor any thing right but when they were overborn with Authority which Authority when the scales turned did the same service and promotion to the contrary 29. But it is considerable that it was not the Article or the thing it self that troubled the disagreeing persons but the manner of representing it For the five Dissenters Eusebius of Nicomedia Theognis Maris Theonas and Secundus believed Christ to be very God of very God but the clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they derided as being perswaded by their Logick that he was neither of the substance of the Father by division as a piece of a lump nor derivation as children from their Parents nor by production as buds from trees and no body could tell them any other way at that time and that made the fire to burn still And that was it I said if the Article had been with more simplicity and less nicety determined charity would have gained more and faith would have lost nothing And we shall find the wisest of them all for so Eusebius Pamphilus was esteemed published a Creed or Confession in the Synod and though he and all the rest believed that great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the flesh yet he was not fully satisfied nor so soon of the clause of one substance till he had done a little violence to his own understanding for even when he had subscribed to the clause of one substance he does it with a protestation that heretofore he never had been acquainted nor accustomed himself to such speeches And the sence of the word was either so ambiguous or their meaning so uncertain that Andreus Fricius does with some probability dispute that the Nicene Fathers by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean Patris similitudinem non essentiae unitatem Sylva 4. c. 1. And it was so well understood by personages disinterested that when Arius and Euzoius had confessed Christ to be Deus verbum without inserting the clause of one substance the Emperour by his Letter approved of his Faith and restored him to his Countrey and Office and the Communion of the Church And a long time after although the Article was believed with nicety enough yet when they added more words still to the mystery and brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying there were three hypostases in the holy Trinity it was so long before it could be understood that it was believed therefore because they would not oppose their Superiours or disturb the peace of the Church in things which they thought could not be understood in so much that Saint Hierom writ to Damascus in these words Discerne si placet obsecro non timebo
tres hypostases dicere si jubetis and again Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum mundi salutem per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitatem ut mihi Epistolis tuis sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas 30. But without all Question the Fathers determined the Question with much truth though I cannot say the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees were so good as the conclusion it self was certain But that which in this case is considerable is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree and the Decree it self into the Symbol as if it had been of the same necessity For the curse Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly find in his heart to subscribe at last he did but with this clause that he subscribed it because the former curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with forraign speeches and unwritten languages whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church So that it was not so much a magisterial high assertion of the Article as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church And to the same purpose for ought I know the Fathers composed a form of Confession not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on but as a tessera of that Communion which by publick Authority was therefore established upon those Articles because the Articles were true though not of prime necessity and because that unity of confession was judged as things then stood the best preserver of the unity of minds 31. But I shall observe this that although the Nicene Fathers in that case at that time and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto yet if this precedent had been followed by all Councils and certainly they had equal power if they had thought it equally reasonable and that they had put all their Decrees into the Creed as some have done since to what a volume had the Creed by this time swelled and all the house had run into foundation nothing left for super-structures But that they did not it appears 1. That since they thought all their Decrees true yet they did not think them all necessary at least not in that degree and that they published such Decrees they did it Declarando not imperando as Doctors in their Chairs not masters of other mens faith and consciences 2. And yet there is some more modesty or wariness or necessity what shall I call it than this comes too for why are not all controversies determined but even when General assemblies of Prelates have been some controversies that have been very vexatious have been pretermitted and others of less consequence have been determined Why did never any General Council condemn in express sentence the Pelagian heresie that great pest that subtle infection of Christendome and yet divers General Councils did assemble while the heresie was in the World Both these cases in several degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying The latter proclaims that all controversies cannot de determined to sufficient purposes and the first declares that those that are are not all of them matters of Faith and themselves are not so secure but they may be deceived and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions yet their Communions and therefore probably their charities are not divided but the former divides their Communions and hinders their interest and yet for ought is certain the accused person is the better Catholick And yet after all this it is not safety enough to say let the Council or Prelates determine Articles warily seldom with great caution and with much sweetness and modesty For though this be better than to do it rashly frequently and furiously yet if we once transgress the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed and not only preach other truths but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra although there be no errour in the subject matter as in Nice there was none yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution and pretend as great a necessity there is no hindring them but by giving reasons against it and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice yet that this is not sufficient for since the Authority of the Nicene Council hath grown to the height of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Council and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice to proceed as peremptorily as they did but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceived were it not better they should spare the labour than that they should with so great pomp and solemnities engage mens perswasions and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind for therefore most certainly in their own Age the point with safety of faith and salvation might have been disputed and disbelieved And that many mens faiths have been tyed up by Acts and Decrees of Councils for those Articles in which the next age did see a liberty had better been preserved because an errour was determined we shall afterward receive a more certain account 32. And therefore the Council of Nice did well and Constantinople did well so did Ephesus and Chalcedon but it is because the Articles were truly determined for that is part of my belief but who is sure it should be so before-hand and whether the points there determined were necessary or no to be believed or to be determined if peace had been concerned in it through the faction and division of the parties I suppose the judgment of Constantine the Emperour and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us whose authority I rather urge than reasons because it is a prejudice and not a reason I am to contend against it 33. So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop are sometimes of very good use for the peace of the Church and they are good also to determine the judgment of indifferent persons whose reasons of either side are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority But for persons of confident and imperious understandings they on whose side the determination is are armed with a prejudice against the other and with a weapon to affront them but with no more to convince them and they against whom the decision is do the more readily betake themselves to the defensive and are engaged upon contestation and publick enmities for such Articles which either might safely have been unknown or with much charity disputed Therefore the Nicene Council although it have the advantage of an acquired and prescribing Authority yet it must
the faults and failings of humanity It is a famous saying of St. Gregory That he had the four first Councils in esteem and veneration next to the four Evangelists I suppose it was because he did believe them to have proceeded according to rule and to have judged righteous judgment but why had not he the same opinion of other Councils too which were celebrated before his death for he lived after the fifth General not because they had not the same Authority for that which is warrant for one is warrant for all but because he was not so confident that they did their duty nor proceeded so without interest as the first four had done and the following Councils did never get that reputation which all the Catholick Church acknowledged due to the first four And in the next Order were the three following Generals for the Greeks and Latines did never jointly acknowledge but seven Generals to have been authentick in any sence because they were in no sence agreed that any more than seven had proceeded regularly and done their duty So that now the Question is not whether General Councils have a promise that the holy Ghost will assist them For every private man hath that promise that if he does his duty he shall be assisted sufficiently in order to that end to which he needs assistance and therefore much more shall General Councils in order to that end for which they convene and to which they need assistance that is in order to the conservation of the Faith for the doctrinal rules of good life and all that concerns the essential duty of a Christian but not in deciding Questions to satisfie contentions or curious or presumptuous spirits But now can the Bishops so convened be factious can they be abused with prejudice or transported with interests can they resist the holy Ghost can they extinguish the Spirit can they stop their ears and serve themselves upon the holy Spirit and the pretence of his assistances and cease to serve him upon themselves by captivating their understandings to his dictates and their wills to his precepts Is it necessary they should perform any condition is there any one duty for them to perform in these Assemblies a duty which they have power to do or not to do If so then they may fail of it and not do their duty And if the assistance of the holy Spirit be conditional then we have no more assurance that they are assisted than that they do their duty and do not sin 2. Now let us suppose what this duty is Certainly if the Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost and all that come to the knowledge of the truth must come to it by such means which are spiritual and holy dispositions in order to a holy and spiritual end They must be shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace that is they must have peaceable and docible dispositions nothing with them that is violent and resolute to encounter those gentle and sweet assistances and the Rule they are to follow is the Rule which the holy Spirit hath consigned to the Catholick Church that is the holy Scripture either intirely or at least for the greater part of the Rule So that now if the Bishops be factious and prepossessed with perswasions depending upon interest it is certain they may judge amiss and if they recede from the Rule it is certain they do judge amiss And this I say upon their grounds who most advance the Authority of General Councils For if a General Council may err if a Pope confirm it not then most certainly if in any thing it recede from Scripture it does also err because that they are to expect the Popes confirmation they offer to prove from Scripture now if the Popes confirmation be required by authority of Scripture and that therefore the defailance of it does evacuate the Authority of the Council then also are the Councils Decrees invalid if they recede from any other part of Scripture So that Scripture is the Rule they are to follow and a man would have thought it had been needless to have proved it but that we are fallen into Ages in which no truth is certain no reason concluding nor is there any thing that can convince some men For Stapleton with extream boldness against the piety of Christendom against the publick sence of the ancient Church and the practice of all pious Assemblies of Bishops affirms the Decrees of a Council to be binding etiamsi non confirmetur ne probabilì testimonio Scripturarum nay though it be quite extra Scripturam but all wise and good men have ever said that sence which Saint Hilary expressed in these words Quae extra Evangelium sunt non defendam This was it which the good Emperour Constantine propounded to the Fathers met at Nice Libri Evangelici oracula Apostolorum veterum Prophetarum clarè nos instruunt quid sentiendum in Divinis And this is confessed by a sober man of the Roman Church it self the Cardinal of Cusa Oportet quòd omnia talia quae legere debent contineantur in Authoritatibus sacrarum Scripturarum Now then all the advantage I shall take from hence is this That if the Apostles commended them who examined their Sermons by their conformity to the Law and the Prophets and the men of Berea were accounted noble for searching the Scriptures whether those things which they taught were so or no I suppose it will not be denied but the Councils Decrees may also be tryed whether they be conform to Scripture yea or no and although no man can take cognisance and judge the Decrees of a Council pro Authoritate publicâ yet pro informatione privatâ they may the Authority of a Council is not greater than the Authority of the Apostles nor their dictates more sacred or authentick Now then put case a Council should recede from Scripture whether or no were we bound to believe its Decrees I only ask the Question For it were hard to be bound to believe what to our understanding seems contrary to that which we know to be the Word of God But if we may lawfully recede from the Councils Decrees in case they be contrariant to Scripture it is all that I require in this Question For if they be tyed to a Rule then they are to be examined and understood according to the Rule and then we are to give our selves that liberty of judgment which is requisite to distinguish us from beasts and to put us into a capacity of reasonable people following reasonable guides But however if it be certain that the Councils are to follow Scripture then if it be notorious that they do recede from Scripture we are sure we must obey God rather than men and then we are well enough For unless we are bound to shut our eyes and not to look upon the Sun if we may give our selves liberty to believe what seems most
of the Imperial City it became the principal Seat and he surprized the highest Judicature partly by the concession of others partly by his own accidental advantages and yet even in these things although he was major singulis yet he was minor universis And this is no more then what was decreed of the eighth General Synod which if it be sense is pertinent to this Question for General Councils are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam By audacter as is supposed is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably but if to give sentence against him be wholly forbidden it is non-sense for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance if they have no power of giving sentence unless it were to defer it to a superiour judge which in this case cannot be supposed For either the Pope himself is to judge his own cause after their examination of him or the General Council is to judge him So that although the Council is by that Decree enjoyned to proceed modestly and warily yet they may proceed to sentence or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent 5. But to clear all I will instance in matters of Question and opinion For not onely some Councils have made their Decrees without or against the Pope but some Councils have had the Pope's confirmation and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory but are known to be heretical For the Canons of the sixth Synod although some of them were made against the Popes and the custome of the Church of Rome a Pope a while after did confirm the Council and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall and so esteemed by the Church of Rome herself I instance in the second Canon which approves of that Synod of Carthage under Cyprian for rebaptization of Hereticks and the 72. Canon that dissolves marriage between persons of differing perswasion in matters of Christian Religion and yet these Canons were approved by Pope Adrian I. who in his Epistle to Tharasius which is in the second Action of the seventh Synod calls them Canones divinè legaliter praedicatos And these Canons were used by Pope Nicolas I. in his Epistle ad Michaelem and by Innocent III. c. à multis extra de aetat ordinandorum So that now that we may apply this there are seven General Councils which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour The Council of Antioch A. D. 345. in which Saint Athanasius was condemned The Council of Millan A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops The Council of Ariminum consisting of 600 Bishops The second Council of Ephesus A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresie was confirmed and the Patriarch Flavianus kill'd by the faction of Dioscorus The Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus A. D. 730 And another at Constantinople 35 years after And lastly the Council at Pisa 134 years since Now that these General Councils are condemned is a sufficient Argument that Councils may erre and it is no answer to say they were not confirmed by the Pope for the Pope's confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary or if it were yet even that also is an Argument that General Councils may become invalid either by their own fault or by some extrinsecall supervening accident either of which evacuates their Authority And whether all that is required to the legitimation of a Council was actually observ'd in any Council is so hard to determine that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Council is authentick and sufficient probation 6. Secondly And that is the second thing I shall observe There are so many Questions concerning the efficient the form the matter of General Councils and their manner of proceeding and their final sanction that after a Question is determined by a Conciliary Assembly there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Council upon its mere Authority or obtrude it upon others And upon this ground how easie it is to elude the pressure of an Argument drawn from the Authority of a General Council is very remarkable in the Question about the Pope's or the Council's Superiority which Question although it be defined for the Council against the Pope by five General Councils the Council of Florence of Constance of Basil of Pisa and one of the Laterans yet the Jesuites to this day account this Question pro non definita and have rare pretences for their escape As first It is true a Council is above a Pope in case there be no Pope or he uncertain which is Bellarmin's answer never considering whether he spake sense or no nor yet remembring that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius who was a true Pope and so acknowledged Secondly sometimes the Pope did not confirm these Councils that 's their Answer And although it was an exception that the Fathers never thought of when they were pressed with the Authority of the Council of Ariminum or Sirmium or any other Arrian Convention yet the Council of Basil was conven'd by Pope Martin V. then in its sixteenth Session declared by Eugenius the IV. to be lawfully continued and confirmed expresly in some of its Decrees by Pope Nicolas and so stood till it was at last rejected by Leo the X. very many years after but that came too late and with too visible an interest and this Council did decree fide Catholicâ tenendum Concilium esse supra Papam But if one Pope confirms it and another rejects it as it happened in this case and in many more does it not destroy the competency of the Authority and we see it by this instance that it so serves the turns of men that it is good in some cases that is when it makes for them and invalid when it makes against them Thirdly but it is a little more ridiculous in the case of the Council of Constance whose Decrees were confirmed by Martin V. But that this may be no Argument against them Bellarmine tells you he onely confirmed those things quae facta fuerant Conciliariter re diligenter examinatâ of which there being no mark nor any certain Rule to judge it it is a device that may evacuate any thing we have a mind to it was not done Conciliariter that is not according to our mind for Conciliariter is a fine new-nothing that may signifie what you please Fourthly but other devices yet more pretty they have As Whether the Council of Lateran was a General Council or no they know not no nor will not know which is a wise and plain reservation of their own advantages to make it General or not General as shall serve their turns Fifthly as for the Council of Florence they are not sure whether it hath defined the Question satìs apertè apertè they will grant if you will allow them not satìs aperté Sixthly and lastly the
when he was in the Persian War when as it is known before that time he had returned to Rome and triumphed for his Persian Conquest as Eusebius in his Chronicle reports and this is so plain that Binius and Baronius pretend the Text to be corrupted and to go to mend it by such an emendation as is a plain contradiction to the sense and that so un-clerk-like viz. by putting in two words and leaving out one which whether it may be allowed them by any licence less then Poetical let Criticks judge S. Gregory saith that the Constantinopolitans had corrupted the Synod of Chalcedon and that he suspected the same concerning the Ephesine Council And in the fifth Synod there was a notorious prevarication for there were false Epistles of Pope Vigilius and Menna the Patriarch of Constantinople inserted and so they passed for authentick till they were discovered in the sixth General Synod Actions the 12. and 14. And not onely false Decrees and Actions may creep into the Codes of Councils but sometimes the authority of a learned man may abuse the Church with pretended Decrees of which there is no Copy or shadow in the Code itself And thus Thomas Aquinas says that the Epistle to the Hebrews was reckoned in the Canon by the Nicene Council no shadow of which appears in those Copies we now have of it and this pretence and the reputation of the man prevailed so far with Melchior Canus the learned Bishop of the Canaries that he believed it upon this ground Vir sanctus rem adeò gravem non astrueret nisi compertum habuisset and there are many things which have prevailed upon less reason and a more slight Authority And that very Council of Nice hath not onely been pretended by Aquinas but very much abused by others and its Authority and great reputation hath made it more liable to the fraud and pretences of idle people For whereas the Nicene Fathers made but twenty Canons for so many and no more were received by Cecilian of Carthage that was at Nice in the Council by Saint Austin and 200 African Bishops with him by Saint Cyril of Alexandria by Atticus of Constantinople by Ruffinus Isidore and Theodoret as Baronius witnesses yet there are fourscore lately found out in an Arabian MS. and published in Latine by Turrian and Alfonsus of Pisa Jesuites surely and like to be masters of the mint And not onely the Canons but the very Acts of the Nicene Council are false and spurious and are so confessed by Baronius though how he and Lindanus will be reconciled upon the point I neither know well nor much care Now if one Council be corrupted we see by the instance of S. Gregory that another may be suspected and so all because he found the Council of Chalcedon corrupted he suspected also the Ephesine and another might have suspected more for the Nicene was tampered foully with and so three of the four Generals were sullied and made suspicious and therefore we could not be secure of any If false Acts be inserted in one Council who can trust the actions of any unless he had the keeping the Records himself or durst swear for the Register And if a very learned man as Thomas Aquinas was did either wilfully deceive us or was himself ignorantly abused in Allegation of a Canon which was not it is but a very fallible Topick at the best and the most holy man that is may be abused himself and the wisest may deceive others 10. Sixthly and lastly To all this and to the former instances by way of Corollary I adde some more particulars in which it is notorious that Councils General and National that is such as were either General by Original or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholick Church did erre and were actually deceived The first Council of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine so he have no wife besides and this Council is approved by Pope Leo in the 92. Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Gratian saies that the Council means by a Concubine a wise married sine dote solennitate but this is dawbing with untempered morter For though it was a custome amongst the Jews to distinguish Wives from their Concubines by Dowry and legal Solennities yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise then as lawfull and unlawfull then as Chastity and Fornication And besides if by a Concubine is meant a lawfull wife without a Dowry to what purpose should the Council make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity that a man should have a Portion with his Wife nor he that married a poor Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate So that Gratian and his Followers are prest so with this Canon that to avoid the impiety of it they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose But the business then was that Adultery was so publick and notorious a practice that the Council did chuse rather to endure simple Fornication that by such permission of a less they might slacken the publick custome of a greater just as at Rome they permit Stews to prevent unnatural sins But that by a publick sanction Fornicators habitually and notoriously such should be admitted to the holy Communion was an act of Priests so unfit for Priests that no excuse can make it white or clean The Council of Wormes does authorize a superstitious custom at that time too much used of discovering stolen goods by the holy Sacrament which Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition The sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresie The Roman Council under Pope Nicolas II. defin'd that not onely the Sacrament of Christ's body but the very body itself of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants which is a manifest errour derogatory from the truth of Christ's beatificall Resurrection and glorification in the Heavens and disavowed by the Church of Rome it self But Bellarmine that answers all the Arguments in the world whether it be possible or not possible would fain make the matter fair and the Decree tolerable for says he the Decree means that the body is broken not in it self but in the sign and yet the Decree sayes that not onely the Sacrament which if any thing be is certainly the sign but the very body it self is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively which indeed was nothing but a plain over-acting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense for he denies that the body it self is broken in it self that was the errour we charged upon the Roman Synod and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken for that was the opinion that Council condemn'd in Berengarius but
says Bellarmine the body in the sign What 's that for neither the sign nor the body nor both together are broken For if either of them distinctly they either rush upon the errour which the Roman Synod condemn'd in Berengarius or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicolas but if both are broken then 't is true to affirm it of either and then the Council is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passible and frangible by natural manducation So that it is and it is not it is not this way and yet it is no way else but it is some way and they know not how and the Council spake blasphemy but it must be made innocent and therefore it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised that the unwary Reader might be amused and the Decree scape untoucht but the truth is they that undertake to justifie all that other men say must be more subtle then they that said it and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authours did not understand But I will multiply no more instances for what instance soever I shall bring some or other will be answering it which thing is so far from satisfying me in the particulars that it encreases the difficulty in the general and satisfies me in my first belief For if no Decrees of Councils can make against them though they seem never so plain against them then let others be allowed the same liberty and there is all the reason in the world they should and no Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine that they have already entertained and by this means the Church is no fitter instrument to decree Controversies then the Scripture it self there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense and the manner and the degree and the competency and the obligation of the Decree of a Council as of a place of Scripture And what are we the nearer for a Decree if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Council yet this they do that pretend highest for their Authority which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian prefer S. Hierom's single Testimony before a whole Council because he had Scripture on his side which says that the Authority of Councils is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Councils may possibly recede from their Rule from Scripture and in that which indeed was the case a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument so saith Panormitan In concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset dicto Papae aut totius Concilii praeferendum si ille moveretur melioribus Argumentis 11. I end this Discourse with representing the words of Gregory Nazianzen in his Epistle to Procopius Ego si vera scribere oportet ità animo assect us sum ut omnia Episcoporum Concilia fugiam quoniam nullius Concilii sinem laetum faustúmque vidi nec quod depulsionem malorum potiùs quà m accessionem incrementum habuerit But I will not be so severe and dogmaticall against them â—or I believe many Councils to have been call'd with sufficient Authoritie to have been managed with singular piety and prudence and to have been finished with admirable successe and truth And where we find such Councils he that will not with all veneration believe their Decrees and receive their Sanctions understands not that great duty he owes to them who have the care of our souls whose faith we are bound to follow saith Saint Paul that is so long as they follow Christ and certainly many Councils have done so But this was then when the publick interest of Christendome was better conserv'd in determining a true Article then in finding a discreet temper or a wise expedient to satisfie disagreeing persons As the Fathers at Trent did and the Lutherans and Calvinists did at Sendomir in Polonia and the Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians did at Dort It was in Ages when the summe of Religion did not consist in maintaining the Grandezza of the Papacy where there was no order of men with a fourth Vow upon them to advance Saint Peter's Chair when there was no man nor any company of men that esteem'd themselves infallible and therefore they searched for truth as if they meant to find it and would believe it if they could see it proved not resolved to prove it because they had upon chance or interest believed it then they had rather have spoken a truth then upheld their reputation but onely in order to truth This was done sometimes and when it was done God's Spirit never fail'd them but gave them such assistances as were sufficient to that good end for which they were assembled and did implore his aid And therefore it is that the four General Councils so called by way of eminency have gained so great a reputation above all others not because they had a better promise or more special assistances but because they proceeded better according to the Rule with less faction without ambition and temporal ends 12. And yet those very Assemblies of Bishops had no Authority by their Decrees to make a Divine Faith or to constitute new objects of necessary Credence they made nothing true that was not so before and therefore they are to be apprehended in the nature of excellent Guides and whose Decrees are most certainly to determine all those who have no Argument to the contrary of greater force and efficacy then the Authoritie or reasons of the Council And there is a duty owing to every Parish Priest and to every Diocesan Bishop these are appointed over us and to answer for our souls and are therefore morally to guide us as reasonable Creatures are to be guided that is by reason and discourse For in things of judgement and understanding they are but in form next above Beasts that are to be ruled by the imperiousness and absoluteness of Authority unless the Authority be divine that is infallible Now then in a juster height but still in its true proportion Assemblies of Bishops are to guide us with a higher Authority because in reason it is supposed they will do it better with more Argument and certainty and with Decrees which have the advantage by being the results of many discourses of very wise and good men But that the Authority of General Councils was never esteemed absolute infallible and unlimited appears in this that before they were obliging it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them Concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu c. in declaratione veritatum quae credenda sunt c. That 's the way of making the Decrees of Councils become authentick and be turn'd into a Law as Gerson observes and till they did their Decrees were but a dead letter and therefore it is that these later Popes have so laboured that the Council of Trent should be received
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
any Synod General National or Provincial be receded from by the Church of the later Age as there have been very many then so many Fathers as were then assembled and united in opinion are esteemed no Authority to determine our perswasions Now suppose 200 Fathers assembled in such a Council if all they had writ Books and 200 Authorities had been alledged in confirmation of an opinion it would have made a mighty noise and loaded any man with an insupportable prejudice that should dissent And yet every opinion maintained against the Authority of any one Council though but Provincial is in its proportion such a violent recession and neglect of the Authority and Doctrine of so many Fathers as were then assembled who did as much declare their opinion in those Assemblies by their Suffrages as if they had writ it in so many books and their opinion is more considerable in the Assembly then in their writings because it was more deliberate assisted united and more dogmaticall In pursuance of this observation it is to be noted by way of instance that Saint Austin and two hundred and seventeen Bishops and all their Successors for a whole Age together did consent in denying Appeals to Rome and yet the Authority of so many Fathers all true Catholicks is of no force now at Rome in this Question but if it be in a matter they like one of these Fathers alone is sufficient The Doctrine of Saint Austin alone brought in the Festival and veneration of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized Infants and the Dominican opinion concerning Predetermination derived from him alone as from their Original So that if a Father speaks for them it is wonderfull to see what Tragedies are stirred up against them that dissent as is to be seen in that excellent nothing of Campian's Ten reasons But if the Fathers be against them then Patres in quibusdam non leviter lapsi sunt says Bellarmine and Constat quosdam ex praecipuis it is certain the chiefest of them have foully erred Nay Posa Salmeron and Wadding in the Question of the immaculate Conception make no scruple to dissent from Antiquity to prefer new Doctors before the old and to justifie themselves bring instances in which the Church of Rome had determined against the Fathers And it is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may erre but if they concur they are certain Testimony For there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tried by the Fathers so generally attested on either side as some points are which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly And therefore 't is not honest for either side to press the Authority of the Fathers as a concluding Argument in matter of dispute unless themselves will be content to submit in all things to the Testimony of an equal number of them which I am certain neither side will do 3. If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this Topick it would be more then needs as to this Question and therefore I will abstain from all disparagement of those worthy personages who were excellent lights to their several Dioceses and Cures And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no hunger or thirst but eat onely to make demonstration of the verity of his Humane nature nor that Saint Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow nor that Origen taught the pains of Hell not to have an eternall duration nor that S. Cyprian taught Rebaptization nor that Athenagoras condemned second Marriages nor that Saint John Damascen said Christ onely prayed in appearance not really and in truth I will let them all rest in peace and their memories in honour for if I should inquire into the particular probations of this Article I must doe to them as I should be forced to doe now if any man should say that the Writings of the School-men were excellent argument and Authority to determine mens perswasions I must consider their writings and observe their defaillances their contradictions the weakness of their Arguments the mis-allegations of Scripture their inconsequent deductions their false opinions and all the weaknesses of humanity and the failings of their persons which no good man is willing to doe unless he be compelled to it by a pretence that they are infallible or that they are followed by men even into errours or impiety And therefore since there is enough in the former instances to cure any such misperswasion and prejudice I will not instance in the innumerable particularities that might perswade us to keep our Liberty intire or to use it discreetly For it is not to be denied but that great advantages are to be made by theiâ— writings probabile est quod omnibus quod pluribus quod sapientibus videtur If one wise man says a thing it is an argument to me to believe it in its degree of probation that is proportionable to such an assent as the Authority of a wise man can produce and when there is nothing against it that is greater and so in proportion higher and higher as more wise men such as the old Doctors were do affirm it But that which I complain of is that we look upon wise men that lived long agoe with so much veneration and mistake that we reverence them not for having been wise men but that they lived long since But when the Question is concerning Authority there must be something to build it on a Divine Commandment humane Sanction excellency of spirit and greatness of understanding on which things all humane Authority is regularly built But now if we had lived in their times for so we must look upon them now as they did who without prejudice beheld them I suppose we should then have beheld them as we in England look on those Prelates who are of great reputation for learning and sanctity here onely is the difference when persons are living their Authority is depressed by their personal defaillances and the contrary interests of their contemporaries which disband when they are dead and leave their credit intire upon the reputation of those excellent books and monuments of learning and piety which are left behind But beyond this why the Bishop of Hippo shall have greater Authority then the Bishop of the Canaries caeteris paribus I understand not For did they that lived to instance in Saint Austin's time beâ—ieve all that he wrote If they did they were much to blame or else himself was to blame for retracting much of it a little before his death And if while he lived his affirmative was no more Authority then derives from the credit of one very wise man against whom also very wise men were opposed I know not why his Authority should prevail farther now for there is nothing added to the strength of his reason since that time but onely
the hands of the Bishop he was not Confirmed Quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum Sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Which having not obtain'd how can he be suppos'd to have receiv'd the Holy Spirit The same also something more fully related by Nicephorus but wholly to the same purpose Melchiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain argues excellently about the necessity and usefulness of the Holy Rite of Confirmation What does the mystery of Confirmation profit me after the mystery of Baptism Certainly we did not receive all in our Baptism if after that Lavatory we want something of another kind Let your charity attend As the Military order requires that when the General enters a Souldier into his list he does not only mark him but furnishes him with Arms for the Battel so in him that is Baptiz'd this Blessing is his Ammunition You have given Christ a Souldier give him also Weapons And what will it profit him if a Father gives a great Estate to his Son if he does not take care to provide a Tutor for him Therefore the Holy Spirit is the Guardian of our Regeneration in Christ he is the Comforter and he is the Defender I have already alledged the plain Testimonies of Optatus and S. Cyril in the first Section I add to them the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen speaking of Confirmation or the Christian signature Hoc viventi tibi maximum est tutamentum Ovis enim quae sigillo insignita est non facilè patet insidiis quae verò signata non est facilè à furibus capitur This Signature is your greatest guard while you live For a Sheep when it is mark'd with the Master's sign is not so soon stollen by Thieves but easily if she be not The same manner of speaking is also us'd by S. Basil who was himself together with Eubulus confirm'd by Bishop Maximinus Quomodo curam geret tanquam ad se pertinentis Angelus quomodo eripiat ex hostibus si non agnoverit signaculum How shall the Angel know what sheep belong unto his charge how shall he snatch them from the Enemy if he does not see their mark and signature Theodoret also and Theophylact speak the like words and so far as I can perceive these and the like sayings are most made use of by the School-men to be their warranty for an indeleble Character imprinted in Confirmation I do not interest my self in the question but only recite the Doctrine of these Fathers in behalf of the Practice and Usefulness of Confirmation I shall not need to transcribe hither those clear testimonies which are cited from the Epistles of S. Clement Vrban the First Fabianus and Cornelius the summ of them is in those plainest words of Vrban the First Omnes fideles per manûs impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum accipere debent All faithful people ought to receive the Holy Spirit by Imposition of the Bishops hands after Baptism Much more to the same purpose is to be read collected by Gratian de Consecrat dist 4. Presbyt de Consecrat dist 5. Omnes fideles ibid. Spiritus Sanctus S. Hierom brings in a Luciferian asking Why he that is Baptiz'd in the Church does not receive the Holy Ghost but by Imposition of the Bishop's hands The answer is Hanc observâ—tionem ex Scripturae authoritate ad Sacerdotii honorem descendere This observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend from the authority of the Scriptures adding withall it was for the prevention of Schisms and that the Safety of the Church did depend upon it Exigis ubi scriptum est If you ask where it is written it is answered in Actibus Apostolorum It is written in the Acts of the Apostles But if there were no authority of Scripture for it totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret the Consent of the whole Christian World in this Article ought to prevail as a Commandment But here is a twofold Chord Scripture and Universal Tradition or rather Scripture expounded by an Universal traditive interpretation The same observation is made from Scripture by S. Chrysostom The words are very like those now recited from S. Hierom's Dialogue and therefore need not be repeated S. Ambrose calls Confirmation Spiritale signaculum quod post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat A spiritual Seal remaining after Baptism that Perfection be had Oecumenius calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfection Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus superfunditur utraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus said Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona In Baptism our sins are cleans'd in Confirmation the Holy Spirit is pour'd upon us and both these we obtain by the hands and mouth of the Bishop And again vestrae plebi unde Spiritus quam non consignat unctus Sacerdos The same with that of Cornelius in the case of Novatus before cited I shall add no more lest I overset the Article and make it suspicious by too laborious a defence only after these numerous testimonies of the Fathers I think it may be useful to represent that this Holy Rite of Confirmation hath been decreed by many Councils The Council of Eliberis celebrated in the time of P. Sylvester the First decreed that whosoever is Baptiz'd in his sickness if he recover ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem perfici possit Let him be brought to the Bishop that he may be perfected by the Imposition of hands To the same purpose is the 77. Can. Episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit The Bishop must perfect those whom the Minister Baptiz'd by his Benediction The Council of Laodicea decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that are Baptized must be anointed with the celestial Unction and so be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ. All that are so that is are Confirm'd for this celestial Unction is done by holy Prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit so Zonaras upon this Canon All such who have this Unction shall reign with Christ unless by their wickedness they preclude their own possessions This Canon was put into the Code of the Catholick Church and makes the 152. Canon The Council of Orleans affirms expresly that he who is Baptiz'd cannot be a Christian meaning according to the usual style of the Church a full and perfect Christan nisi confirmatione Episcopali suerit Chrismatus unless he have the Unction of Episcopal Confirmation But when the Church had long disputed concerning the re-baptizing of Hereticks and made Canons for and against it according as the Heresies were and all agreed that if the first Baptism had been once good it could never be repeated yet they thought it fit that such persons should be Confirm'd by the Bishop all supposing Confirmation to be the perfection and consummation of the less-perfect Baptism Thus the
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
caused those to be burned for hereticks that made pictures of the Trinity 555. The Primitive Church did confirm hereticks reconciled 32. b. The nature and differences of Heresie 947 948. and 964 965 seq Of the heresie of the Encratites Gnosticks 949 n. 8. Of such heresies as are named such in the N. Testament 948 n. 6. It is not an errour of the understanding onely 949 n. 8. How an errour becomes evil in genere morum 950 n. 9. A mere errour of the understanding is no sin 950 n. 10. What addition it is that makes errour become heresie 950 n. 10. No man is an heretick against his will 951 n. 12. The title of Heresie was sometimes given upon very slight grounds 953 n. 17. Of the ancient Catalogues of Heresie 955 n. 18 19. Of rebaptizing Hereticks 957 958 968. Ambition the cause of many heresies 1022. Hosea Chapter 6. v. 7. explained 711. I. Saint James HE was called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the 12 Apostles 48 § 4. Epist. of Saint James Chap. 2. v. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole and yet offends in one point is guilty of all explained 649 n. 55. Chap. 1.13 explained 737 n. 90. Idolatry To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. The distinction of material and formal Idolatry hath no place in practical Divinity 269 § 13. The worshipping of Images is Idolatry 337 § 12. and not to be excused by that distinction of terminativè relativè 338 c. 2. § 12. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of their worshipping Images 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. Jeremiah Chap. 2. v. 13. digged for them cisterns explained 332. Saint Jerome Concerning his testimony taken out of his Comment upon Titus usually brought against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and ss 44. and pag. 144. The Bishop for his acts of Judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyter's assistance to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. Ignorance Where it self is no sin the action flowing from it is no sin neither 795 n. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 199 § 4. Images The worship of Images was brought in by the first Hereticks 306. Saint Cyril and Epiphanius against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The doctrine of Image-worship was not held for Catholick either in France or Germany for almost 1000 years after Christ 307. The worship of them is such Idolatry as no distinction of theirs can excuse 337 338 c. 2. § 12. Heathens could not worship an Image terminativè 338. Of the testimony of the Eliberitan Council against Images 538. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. The testimony of Epiphanius out of his Epistle translated by Saint Hierome against the worship of Images 536. The worship of them came from a very infamous original viz. Simon Magus 445. The Jews never objected the worship of Images against the Primitive Christians 546. In that part of the Thalmud written about A. D. 200. the Jews object nothing against the Christians for worshipping Images but in that which was written about A. D. 1000. or 1100. they do 546. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of Image-worship 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. When Image-worship came first into England 550. What gave the Iconoclasticks the first occasion 1017. Impossible Of God's power to doe things impossible 233 § 11. Why should not the many impossibilities be a bar against the belief of the Trinity as well as Transubstantiation 242 § 11. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is impossible and implies contradictions 301. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 809 n. 39. A limited signification of it 839 n. 39. Imputare What the word signifies 886. Of our justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness 901 902. The sense and meaning of Imputation in the matter of imputed righteousness by Christ 903. Index Expurgatorius The Caution the King of Spain gave in the first making that kind of Index 289 c. 1. § 1. Indulgences When they were first set up 291. Some of their own Writers confess that there is no direct warrant for them neither in the Fathers nor Scripture 291. There is nothing of Indulgences in Pet. Lombard nor in all Gratian 291. The meaning of their Article of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. Mayron and Durandus disputed against Indulgences 291. Cardinal Cajetan's opinion of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. The mischief of them 292. At first they could not agree what the penitent or purchaser got by it 292 293. Indulgences imployed to raise a portion for the Pope's Niece 292. Of their Indulgences 318 316 c. 2. § 3. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many difficulties about them 319. They make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Good life undermin'd by their doctrine of Indulgences 320. Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. When the doctrine of Indulgences was first brought into the Church 495. Villains have been hired by Indulgences to commit murther 497. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. Some considerations upon the practice of Indulgences 498. Infallibility Of the Pope's Infallibility 995 sect 7. per tot Neither Irenaeus nor Saint Cyprian believed the Pope's Infallibility 1001. Concerning that text Matth. 16.18 Tu es Petrus super hanc petram 996 997. Of that text Matth. 16.19 tibi dabo claves 996. Instances of such actions of divers ancient Popes as were not very consistent with an opinion of the infallible chair 997. Perron's phansy upon Tu es Petrus turned against himself 998. Saint Paul was Bishop of the Church of Gentiles at Rome how then comes the Infallibility by right of succession from Saint Peter 999. Divers Popes were Hereticks and impious as Zepherinus 1003. Pope Innocent III. argued ridiculously when he was in Cathedra 1003. Pope Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Synod and that condemnation ratified in the eighth ibid. When Sixtus IV. appointed a festival for the immaculate Conception and offices for it the Dominicans would not receive it and it is not at this day
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
did give veneration and worship to the Image even of the cross it self but no words of S. Cyril were quoted for the denial is not in express words but in plain and direct argument for being by Julian charg'd with worshipping the cross S. Cyril in behalf of the Christians takes notice of their using the cross in a religious memory of all good things to which by the cross of Christ we are ingag'd that is he owns all that they did and therefore taking no notice of any thing of worship and making no answer to that part of the objection it is certain that the Christians did not do it or that he could not justifie them in so doing But because I quoted no words of S. Cyril I now shall take notice of some words of his which do most abundantly clear this particular by a general rule Only the Divine Nature is capable of adoration and the Scripture hath given adoration to no nature but to that of God alone that and that alone ought to be worshipped But to give yet a little more light to this particular it may be noted that before S. Cyrils time this had been objected by the Pagans particularly by Caecilius to which Minutius answers by directly denying it and saying that the Pagans did rather worship crosses that is the woodden parts of their Gods The Christians indeed were by Tertullian called Religiosi crucis because they had it in thankful use and memory and us'd it frequently in a symbolical confession of their not being asham'd but of their glorying in the real cross of Christ But they never worshipped the material cross or the figure of it as appears by S. Cyrils owning all the objections excepting this only of which he neither confessed the fact nor offered any justification of it when it was objected but professed a doctrine with which such practice was inconsistent And the like is to be said of some other of the Fathers who speak with great affections and veneration of the cross meaning to exalt the passion of Christ and in the sence of S. Paul to glory in the cross of Christ not meaning the material cross much less the image of it which we blame in the Church of Rome And this very sence we have expressed in S. Ambrose Sapiens Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum levavit ut Christi Crux in Regibus adoretur The figure of the material cross was by Helena plac'd upon the heads of Kings that the cross of Christ in Kings might be ador'd How so He answers Non insolentia ista sed pietas est cum defertur sacrae redemptioni It is to the holy redemption not to the cross materially taken this were insolent but the other is piety In the same manner also S. Chrysostom is by the Roman Doctors and particularly by Gretser and E. W. urg'd for the worshipping Christs cross But the book de cruce latrone whence the words are cited Gretser and Possevine suspect it to be a spurious issue of some unknown person It wants a Father and sometimes it goes to S. Austin and is crouded into his Sermons de Tempore But I shall not trouble my discourse any farther with such counterfeit ware What S. Chrysostoms doctrine was in the matter of Images is plain enough in his indubitate works as is and shall be remark'd in their several places The famous testimony of Epiphanius against the very use of Images in Churches being urg'd in the Disswasive as an irrefragable argument that the Roman doctrine is not Primitive or Catholick the contra-scribers say nothing but that when S. Hierom translated that Epistle of S. Epiphanius it appears not that this story was in that Epistle that S. Hierom translated which is a great argument that that story was foisted into that Epistle after S. Hieroms time A likely matter but spoken upon slight grounds It appears not saith the Objector that this story was in it then To whom does it not appear To Bellarmine indeed it did not nor to this Objector who writes after him Alan Cope denied that Epiphanius ever wrote any such Epistle at all or that S. Hierom ever translated any such but Bellarmine being asham'd of such unreasonable boldness found out this more gentle answer which here we have from our Objector well but now the case is thus that this story was put into the Epistle by some Iconoclast is vehemently suspected by Bellarmine and Baronius But this Epistle vehemently burns their fingers and the live-coal sticks close to them and they can never shake it off For 1. who should add this story to this Epistle not any of the reformed Doctors for before Luthers time many ages this Epistle with this story was known and confessed and quoted in the Manuscript copies of divers Nations 2. This Epistle was quoted and set down as now it is with this story by Charles the great above DCCC years ago 3. And a little after by the Fathers in the Council of Paris only they call the Author John Bishop of C. P. instead of Jerusalem 4. Sirmondus the Jesuit cites this Epistle as the genuine work of Epiphanius 5. Marianus Victor and Dionysius Petavius a Jesuit of great and deserved same for learning in their Editions of Epiphanius have published this whole Epistle and have made no note given no censure upon this story 6. Before them Thomas Waldensis and since him Alphonsus à Castro acknowledge this whole Epistle as the proper issue of Epiphanius 7. Who can be suppos'd to have put in this story The Iconoclasts Not the Greeks because if they had they would have made use of it for their advantage which they never did in any of their disputations against images insomuch that Bellarmine makes advantage of it because they never objected it Not the Latins that wrote against images for though they were against the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of
other hereticks It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to â—ssue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholicks did reproach the Catholick Church he says Now I admonish you â—hat at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholick Church by reproaching the manners the of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchres and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of Pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitious I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tryed The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to the condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to this part of the question and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God be so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sence that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason taught him well but Nature constrain'd him to the contrary his affections were stronger than his reason 2. And it is no wonder that while flesh and blood is the prevailing ingredient while men are in the state of conjunction and the soul serves the body and the necessities of this are more felt than the discourses of that that men should be angry and lustful proud and revengeful and that they should follow what they lust after not what they are bidden to do For passions and affections are our first governours and they being clearly possessed of all mankind in their first years have almost secured to themselves the soul of man before reason is heard to speak And when she does speak she speaks at first so little and so low that the common noises of fancy and company drown her voice This I say is the state of Nature And therefore Lactantius brings in a Pagan complaining Volo equidem non peccare sed vincor Indutus enim sum carne fragili imbecillâ Haec est quae concupiscit quae irascitur quae dolet quae mori timet Itáque ducor incertus pecco non quia volo sed quia cogor Sentio me ipse peccare sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit cui repugnare non possum I would fain avoid sin but I am compelled I am invested with a frail and weak flesh This is it which lusteth which is angry which grieves which fears to die Therefore I am led uncertainly and I sin not because I will but because I am constrained I perceive that I do ill but the necessity of my weakness drives me on and I cannot resist it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know well and perceive the evils that I go upon and they are horrid ones but my anger is greater than my reason So Medea in the Tragedy This is the state of a natural man in his meer naturals especially as they are made worse by evil customs and vile usages of the world 3. Now this is a state of infirmity and all sins against which there is any reluctancy and contrary desires of actual reason are sins of infirmity But this infirmity excuses no man for this state of infirmity is also a state of death for by this S. Paul expressed that state from which Christ came to redeem us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we were yet in infirmity or without strength in due time Christ died for us that is when when we were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impious or sinners such as the world was before it was redeemed before Christ came These are the sick and weak whom Christ the great Physician of our souls came to save This infirmity is the shadow of death and it signifies that state of mankind which is the state of nature not of original and birth but in its whole constitution as it signifies not only the natural imperfection but the superinduc'd evil from any principle all that which is oppos'd to Grace 4. To this state of Nature being so pitiable God began to find a remedy and renewed the measures of vertue and by a law made them more distinct and legible and impos'd punishments on the transgressors For by little and little the notices of natural reason were made obscure some were lost some not attended to all neglected some way or other till God by a law made express prohibition of what was unreasonable forbidding us to desire what before was unfit and unnatural and threatning them that did things unlawful But this way by reason of the peevishness of men succeeded not well but men became worse by it For what the law did forbid without the threatning of any penalty they took for an advice only and no severe injunction And those Commandments which were established with a threatning to the transgressors they expounded only by the letter and in the particular instance and in the outward act 5. Before the Law men allowed to themselves many impieties which reason indeed mark'd out to be such but no law had forbidden them in express letter They thought it lawful to seduce and tempt another mans wife and invite her to his house and conjugation so he did not steal or force her away but if they found a coldness between her and her husband they would blow the coals and enkindle an evil flame It is supposed that Herod did so to Herodias his brother Philip's wife even after the law They would not by violence snatch the estate from a young prodigal heir but if he were apt they would lend him money and nurse his vice and intangle his estate and at last devour it They would not directly deny to pay the price of a purchase but they would detain it or divert it or pay it in trifling summs or in undesir'd commodities This was Concupiscere rem alienam They did not steal but coveted it and so entred indirectly and this God seeing forbad it by a law For I had not known lust or desires to be a sin saith S. Paul but that the law said Thou shalt not covet 6. But because the law only forbad lustings but imposed no penalty they despis'd it and those things which were forbidden with an appendent penalty they would act them privately For if they avoided the notice of the Criminal Judge they fear'd not the face of an angry God and this Lactantius observ'd of them Metus legum non scelera comprimebat sed licentiam submovebat Poterant enim leges delicta punire conscientiam munire non poterant Itaque quae antè palà m fiebant clam fieri coeperunt circumscribi etiam jura For all the threatnings of the Law they were wicked still though not scandalous vile in private and wary in publick they did circumscribe their laws and thought themselves bound only to the letter and obliged by nothing but the penalty which if they escaped they reckoned themselves innocent Thus far the law instructed them and made them afraid But for the first they grew the more greedy to do what now they were forbidden to desire The prohibition of the law being like a damm to the waters the desire swells the higher for being check'd and the wisdom of Romulus in not casting up a bank against parricide had this effect that until the end of the second Punick war which was almost DC years there was no example of one that kill'd his Father Lucius Ostius was the first And it is certain that the Easterlings neither were nor had they reason to be fond of Circumcision it was part of that load which was complain'd of by the Apostles in behalf of the Jewish Nation which neither they nor their Fathers could bear and yet as soon as Christ took off the yoke and that it was forbidden to his Disciples the Jews were as fond of it as of their pleasures and fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem in immediate
succession were all circumcised and no arguments no authority could hinder them And for their fear it only produc'd caution and sneaking from the face of men and both together set them on work to corrupt the spirit of the law by expositions too much according to the letter so that by this means their natural desires their lustings and concupiscence were not cured 7. For as Lactantius brought in the Heathen complaining so does S. Paul bring in the Jew That which I do I allow not for what I would that I do not but what I hate that I do I say this is the state of a man under the law a man who is not regenerate and made free by the Spirit of Christ that is a man who abides in the infirmities of nature of which the law of nature warn'd him first and the superinduc'd law of God warn'd him more but there was not in these Covenants or Laws sufficient either to endear or to secure obedience they did not minister strength enough to conquer sin to overthrow its power to destroy the kingdom and reign of sin this was reserv'd for the great day of triumph it was the glory of the Gospel the power of Christ the strength of the Spirit which alone was able to do it and by this with its appendages that is the pardon of sin and a victory over it a conquest by the prevailing and rule of the Spirit by this alone the Gospel is the most excellent above all the covenants and states and institutions of the world 8. But then the Christian must not complain thus if he be advanced into the secrets of the Kingdom if he be a Christian in any thing beyond the name he cannot say that sin gives him laws that it reigns in his mortal body that he is led captive by Satan at his will that he sins against his will frequently and habitually and cannot help it But so it is men do thus complain and which is worse they make this to be their excuse and their incouragement If they have sinn'd foully they say It is true but it is not I but sin that dwelleth in me For that which I do I allow not for what I would that do I not and what I hate that do I. And if they be tempted to a sin they cannot be disswaded from it or incouraged to a noble and pertinacious resistance because they have this in excuse ready To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not For the good which I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do That is it is my infirmity give me leave to do it I am the child of God for all my sin for I do it with an unwilling willingness I shall do this always and shall never be quit of this tyranny of sin It was thus with S. Paul himself and I ought not to hope to be otherwise than he and a person more free from sin We find in the life of Andronicus written by Nicetas Choniates the same pretence made in excuse for sin they could not help it and we find it so in our daily experience and the thing it self warranted by many Interpreters of Scripture who suppose that S. Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romans from the fourteenth verse to the end describes his own state of infirmity and disability or which is all one the state of a regenerate man that it is no other but an ineffective striving and strugling against sin a contention in which he is most commonly worsted and that this striving is all that he can shew of holiness to be a testimony of his regeneration SECT II. 9. HOW necessary it is to free the words of S. Paul from so dangerous a sence we may easily believe if we consider that to suppose a man who is regenerate by the Spirit of Christ to be still a slave under sin and within its power and that he fain would but cannot help it is very injurious to the power of Christ and the mightiness of the spirit of grace when all its effect is only said to be that it strives but can do nothing that is sin abounds more than grace and the man that is redeemed by Christ is still unredeem'd and a captive under sin and Satan this is not only an incouragement of evil life but a reproach and scorn cast upon the holy Spirit It is verbum dictum contrae Spiritum sanctum a word spoken against the holy Ghost And as S. Austin calls it it is tuba hostis non nostra unde ille incitetur non unde vincatur the Devils trumpet to encourage him in his war against poor mankind but by this means he shall never be overcome And therefore he gives us caution of it for speaking of these words The good which I would that do I not but the evil that I would not that I do advises thus Lectio Divina quae de Apostoli Pauli epistolâ recitata est quotiescunque legitur timendum est ne malè intellecta det hominibus quaerentibus occasionem When ever these words of S. Paul are read we must fear lest the misunderstanding of them should minister an occasion of sin to them that seek it For men are prone to sin and scarce restrain themselves When therefore they hear the Apostle saying I do not the good which I would but I do the evil which I hate they do evil and as it were displeasing themselves because they do it think themselves like the Apostle In pursuance of this caution I shall examine the expositions which are pretended 10. I. These words I do not the good which I would but I do the evil which I hate are not the words or character of a regenerate person in respect of actual good or bad A regenerate man cannot say that he does frequently or habitually commit the sin that he hates and is against his conscience 1. Because no man can serve two Masters if he be a servant of sin he is not a servant of the Spirit No man can serve Christ and Belial If therefore he be brought into captivity to the law of sin he is the servant of sin and such was he whom S. Paul describes in this Chapter Therefore this person is not a servant of Christ He that is a servant of righteousness is freed from sin and he who is a servant of sin is not a servant of but freed from righteousness A regenerate person therefore is a servant of the Spirit and so cannot at the same time be a servant or a slave and a captive under sin 11. II. When the complaint is made I do the evil which I hate the meaning is I do it seldom or I do it commonly and frequently If it means I do it seldom then a man cannot use these words so well as the contrary he can say The good which I would I do regularly