Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne 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 himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere 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 expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall 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 Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters 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 then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then 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 retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre 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 doe Act. 13. 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 doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere 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 Act. 20. of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine 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 Act. 20. 4. And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sense the lessar 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 vers 18. beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd 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 clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile 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
exception by S. Pauls 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 appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. 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 criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge 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 yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves 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 himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. 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 concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving 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 v. 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 himselfe 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 Ierusalem 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 affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall 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 meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall 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 Angell 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 fix't as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell 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 S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S.
For others I shall be incurious because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety and they are the best Theatre and the best judges amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition to be ascribed by my publike pretence to be what I am in all heartinesse of Devotion and for all the reason of the world My Honour'd Lord Your Lordships most faithfull and most affectionate servant J. TAYLOR The Contents of the Sections SECTION I. OF the Nature of Faith and that its duty is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed Pag. 5. SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons pag. 18. SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined pag. 59. SECT IV. Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture pag. 73. SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine Questions pag. 83. SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councels Ecclesiasticall to the same purpose pag. 101. SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions pag. 125. SECT VIII Of the disability of Fathers or Writers Ecclesiasticall to determine our Questions with certainty and Truth pag. 151. SECT IX Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Iudge of Controversies and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit pag. 161. SECT X. Of the authority of Reason and that it proceeding upon the best grounds is the best judge pag. 165. SECT XI Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves pag. 171. SECT XII Of the innocency of Errour in opinion in a pious person pag. 184. SECT XIII Of the deportment to be used towards persons disagreeing and the reasons why they are not to be punished with death c. pag. 189. SECT XIIII Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing and when Persecution first came in pag. 203. SECT XV. How farre the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions pag. 210. SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions pag. 213. SECT XVII Of compliance with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in generall pag. 217. SECT XVIII A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists pag. 223 SECT XIX That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publique good pag. 246. SECT XX. How farre the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable pag. 249. SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion pag. 262. SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how farre they may doe it pag. 264. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OF THE LIBERTY OF PROPHESYING THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion as they have troubled Christendome with interests factions and partialities so have they caused great divisions of the heart and variety of thoughts and designes amongst pious and prudent men For they all seeing the inconveniences which the dis-union of perswasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefes and have made attempts accordingly But it hath hapned to most of them as to a mistaken Physitian who gives excellent physick but mis-applies it and so misses of his cure so have these men their attempts have therefore been ineffectuall for they put their help to a wrong part or they have endeavoured to cure the symptomes and have let the disease alone till it seem'd incurable Some have endeavoured to re-unite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow hoping that the Unity of a Guide would have perswaded unity of mindes but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched so farre was it from extinguishing any part of the flame Others thought of a Rule and this must be the meanes of Union or nothing could doe it But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety that this also became part of the disease for which the cure was pretended All men resolv'd upon this that though they yet had not hit upon the right yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion thinking so long as this variety should last Christ's Kingdome was not advanced and the work of the Gospel went on but slowly Few men in the mean time considered that so long as men had such variety of principles such severall constitutions educations tempers and distempers hopes interests and weaknesses degrees of light and degrees of understanding it was impossible all should be of one minde And what is impossible to be done is not necessary it should be done And therefore although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured and they who attempted it did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earth-quake yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured not by uniting their beliefes that was to be dispaird of but by curing that which caus'd these mischiefes and accidentall inconveniences of their disagreeings For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feeles were consequent to this diversity of perswasions yet it was but accidentally and by chance in as much as wee see that in many things and they of great concernment men alow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing and no hurt neither And certainely if diversity of Opinions were of it selfe the cause of mischiefes it would be so ever that is regularly and universally but that we see it is not For there are disputes in Christendome concerning matters of greater concernment then most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects and make factions and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters such evills are not consequent to such differences as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity or invalidity of a death-bed repentance then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination are of deeper and more materiall consideration then the products of the beliefe of the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of private Masses and yet these great concernments where a liberty of Prophecying in these Questions hath been permitted hath made no distinct Communion no sects of Christians and the others have and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determind on either side Since then if men are
baptized in the name of Jesus because unus Deus unum baptisma and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth severall times and one Sacrament of the Eucharist though a man often communicates so it might be one baptism though often ministred And the unity of baptism might not be deriv'd from the unity of the ministration but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptized though baptized a thousand times yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity still into the death of Christ it might be unum baptisma Whether S. Cyprian Firmilian and their Collegues had this discourse or no I know not I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand But this is it that I say that when a Question is so undetermin'd in Scripture that the Arguments rely only upon such mysticall places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost it were good the rivers did not swell higher then the fountaine and the confidence higher then the Argument and evidence for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemn'd by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it and yet they were which I wonder at so much the more because they who as it was since judg'd had the right cause had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture not so much as such mysticall Arguments but did fly to the Tradition of the Church in which also I shall afterward shew they had nothing that was absolutely certaine 3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing Numb 6. in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment and yet the fabrick and constitution is such that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sense of them should be literall or figurative I speak not here concerning extrinsecall meanes of determination as traditive Interpretation Councels Fathers Popes and the like I shall consider them afterward in their severall places but here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sense and meaning but it must be gotten out as it can and that therefore it is unreasonable that what of it selfe is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sense and intention under the paine of either a sinne or an Anathema I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation Hoc est corpus meum The words are plain and clear apt to be understood in the literall sense and yet this sense is so hard as it does violence to reason and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech But here what shall we have to determine it What mean soever we take and to what sense soever you will expound it you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary senses For if you expound it literally then besides that it seems to intrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life that is to be spiritually understood and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literall sense to these words and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaiticall fancy but besides this why are not those other sayings of Christ expounded literally I am a Vine I am the Doore I am a Rock Why doe we flie to a figure in those parallel words This is the Covenant which I make between me and you and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant and why doe we fly to a figure in a precept as well as in mystery and a proposition If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and yet we have figures enough to save a limb If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter This will be no plea for them who retaine the literall exposition of the other instance against all reason against all Philosophy against all sense and against two or three sciences But if you expound these words figuratively besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give your selfe the liberty which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to doe they may perhaps turn all into Allegory and so may evacuate any precept and elude any Argument Well so it is that very wise men have expounded things * Sic S Hieron In ad â—esâ—entiâ provocatus ardore studio Scriptuarum allegoricè interpretatus sum Abdiam Prophetam cujus historiam nesciebam De sensu Allegorico S. Script dixit Basilius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allegorically when they should have expounded them literally So did the famous Origen who as S. Hierom reports of him turned Paradise so into an Allegory that he took away quite the truth of the Story and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden but the Garden it selfe out of Paradise Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory so did the Ancient Papias understand Apocal. 20. Christs Millenary raign upon earth and so depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporall pleasures and satisfactions and he was followed by Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Lactantius and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the errour If such great spirits be deceiv'd in finding out what kinde of senses L. 23. de Civit. Dei c 7. praefat â— 19. in Isai. in c. 36. Ezek. be to be given to Scriptures it may well be endur'd that we who sit at their feet may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not alwayes tread aright 4. I consider that there are some places of Scripture that Numb 7. have the selfe same expressions the same preceptive words the same reason and account in all appearance and yet either must be expounded to quite different senses or else we must renounce the Communion and the charities of a great part of Christendome And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ c. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these Now then the first is urg'd for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants insomuch that Infants goe to part of Hell if
in his Chaire and made the dictate the result of his pen and inke 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 himselfe 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 Mathematicall Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himselfe witnesses If pasce oves belongs only to the Pope by primary title in these L. 10. Epist. 83. cases the sheep came to feed the Shepherd 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 claime 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 weare a Pastorall staffe except it be in that Diocesse sayes Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not beare the M. 4. Sent. dist 24. Symbol but a man would think that the Popes Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastorall staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a businesse to be merry in But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super Numb 6. hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interressed 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 lesse as a Catholicon instead 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 a Ad Philadelph S. Ignatius S. b Seleuc. orat 25. Basil c L. 6. de Trinit S. Hilary d De Trinitate advers Iudaeos S. Gregory Nyssen e L. 3. Ep. 33. S. Gregory the Great f In 1. Eph. Ioann tr 10. S. Austin g De Trinit l. 4. S. Cyrill of Alexandria h L. 1. Ep. 235. 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 Universall beliefe of Christendome that the Church was built upon S. Peters person Cardinall Perron 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 causally 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 collaterall literall and morall originall and perpetuall accessory and temporall the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduc'd 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 naturall siliation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves lience 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 declaime 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 lesse credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false For * Epist. ad Philadelph In c. 16. Mat. tract 1. Ignatius expounds it in a spirituall sense which also the Liturgy attibuted to S. James cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 himselfe to the limits prescrib'd 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 Sun-shine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperiall 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 from the person to the confession of Peter and declar'd that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have required fancy with fancy but for the maine point that these two Expositions are inclusiue of each other I find no warrant for though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unlesse it could be shown by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratis dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviewes it againe and in his Retractations leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certaine in this Article which had been altogether needlesse if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have beene retracted both were alike true both of them might
as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum cōtumeliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine 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 owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne 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 ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea Epist. 11. but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them ketpe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended Epist. 12. them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus Epist. 65. resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall 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 Epist. 55. the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox Tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furiosum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy that he was hated by them which clearely showes that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excesse of power 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 Clergy unlesse thou strikest them all with thy Pastorall rod. S. Iohn Chrysostome did not indeed doe so but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergy men for diverse 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 clearely 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 joyne with their Bishop to supend themselves Adde to this that Theodoret Ibid. cap. 4. also affirmes that Chrysostome 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. Hierome to Riparius Miror sanctum Advers Vigilant Epist. 53. Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ APOSTOLICA virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not mov'd at the fury of Vigilantius and does not breake him with his APOSTOLICALL rod that by this temporary punishment his soule might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hither to the Bishops Pastorall staffe is of faire power and coërcion The Councell 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 judgement of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would faine have been judg'd 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 Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Councell S. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco
enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Lib. 4. polit c. 15. They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks the Presbyters 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 dispenser 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 himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke 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 Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's 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 himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. 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 Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre 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 travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre 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 onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour 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 dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they have supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee 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 loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what
However things are now It was §. 49. And trusted with affayres of Secular interest otherwise in the Old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honourd with so great degrees of approximation to himselfe in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their soules they might with an equall confidence trust with their personall 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 affayres in whose determination a Divine wisdome and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Common-wealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their severall interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their owne people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for faire issue upon such good grounds as they might fairely expect from the Bishops abilityes authority and religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as shee could and made sanctions against it so farre as shee might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arme to their owne assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawfull for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment S. Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular tribunall is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republike which must be indulged to a private personall necessity But we have not S. Paul's example onely but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another goe to law 1. Cor. 6. before the Vnjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgements 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 S. Ambrose also thought that to In hunc locum be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Iudges For by least esteemed he could not meane 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 S. Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Iesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Iesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Yea but S. Paul's expression seemes to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to Iudge betweene his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Iudges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but onely for S. Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem Fratrem Iudicem eligendum dicit quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus S. Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was Vide etiam August de opere Monach ca. 29. to be the man though till then in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwaies forbid to Clergy-men A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of ingagements in REBUS SAECULI So the sixth Canon of the Apostles Can. 7. Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Vide Zonarin Can. Apostol Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himselfe worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is generall 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 owne trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sinne But if he seekes it for it selfe it is ambition In this sense also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seeke a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it selfe but the illnesse of the intention and this indeed shee expressely forbids in her Canons * Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum Concil Chalced Act. 15. can 3. possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy men farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNES and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councell complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotijs saecularibus se immiscere No Bishop No Clergy man No Monke must farme grounds nor ingage himselfe in secular businesse What in none No none praeter pupillorum si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will doe right to the Question All secular affaires and bargaines either for covetousnesse or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much lesse for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councell of Arles Clericus turpis lucri Can. 14. gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But nor here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may doe any office that is in piâ curâ He may undertake the supravision of Widdowes and Orphans And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupills yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or
amisse in his will and although a Heretick may peradventure have a stronger Argument for his errour then some true Believer for his right perswasion yet it is not considerable how strong his Argument is because in a weak understanding a small motive will produce a great perswasion like gentle physick in a weak body but that which here is considerable is what it is that made his Argument forcible If his invincible and harmlesse prejudice if his weaknesse if his education if his mistaking piety if any thing that hath no venome nor a sting in it there the heartinesse of his perswasion is no sin but his misery and his excuse but if any thing that is evill in genere morum did incline his understanding if his opinion did commence upon pride or is nourished by covetousnesse or continues through stupid carelesnesse or increases by pertinacy or is confirmed by obstinacy then the innocency of the errour is disbanded his misery is changed into a crime and begins its own punishment But by the way I must observe that when I reckond obstinacy amongst those things which make a false opinion criminall it is to be understood with some discretion and distinction For there is an obstinacy of will which is indeed highly guilty of misdemeanour and when the Schoole makes pertinacy or obstinacy to be the formality of heresy they say not true at all unlesse it be meant the obstinacy of the will and choyce and if they doe they speak imperfectly and inartificially this being but one of the causes that makes errour become heresy the adequate and perfect formality of heresy is whatsoever makes the errour voluntary and vitious as is cleare in Scripture reckoning covetousnesse and pride and lust and whatsoever is vitious to be its causes and in habits or morall changes and productions whatever alters the essence of a habite or gives it a new formality is not to be reckoned the efficient but the forme but there is also an obstinacy you may call it but indeed is nothing but a resolution and confirmation of understanding which is not in a mans power honestly to alter and it is not all the commands of humanity that can be Argument sufficient to make a man leave believing that for which he thinks he hath reason and for which he hath such Arguments as heartily convince him Now the persisting in an opinion finally and against all the confidence and imperiousnesse of humane commands that makes not this criminall obstinacy if the erring person have so much humility of will as to submit to whatever God sayes and that no vice in his will hinders him from believing it So that we must carefully distinguish continuance in opinion from obstinacy confidence of understanding from peevishnesse of affection a not being convinced from a resolution never to be convinc'd upon humane ends and vitious principles Scimus quosdam quod Lib. 2. Epist. 1. semel imbiberint nolle deponere nec propositum suum facile mutare sed salvo inter collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propriae quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus saith S. Cyprian And he himselfe was such a one for hee persisted in his opinion of rebaptization untill death and yet his obstinacy was not called criminall or his errour turned to heresy But to return In this sense it is that a Heretick is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 selfe condemn'd not by an immediate expresse sentence of understanding Numb 11. but by his own act or fault brought into condemnation As it is in the Canon Law Notorius percussor Clerici is ipso jure excommunicate not per sententiam latam ab homine but à jure No man hath passed sentence pro tribunali but Law hath decreed it pro edicto So it is in the case of a Heretick The understanding which is judge condemns him not by an expresse sentence for he erres with as much simplicity in the result as he had malice in the principle But there is sententia lata à jure his will which is his law that hath condemn'd him And this is gathered from that saying of S. Paul 2 Tim. 3. 13. But evill men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived First they are evill men malice and peevishnesse is in their wills then they turn Hereticks and seduce others and while they grow worse and worse the errour is master of their understanding they are deceiv'd themselves given over to believe a lie saith the Apostle They first play the knave and then play the foole they first sell themselves to the purchase of vaine glory or ill ends and then they become possessed with a lying spirit and believe those things heartily which if they were honest they should with Gods Grace discover and disclaime So that now we see that bona fides in falso articulo a hearty perswasion in a false article does not alwayes make the errour to be esteemed involuntary but then only when it is as innocent in the principle as it is confident in the present perswasion And such persons who by their ill lives and vitious actions or manifest designes for by their fruits yee shall know them give testimony of such criminall indispositions so as competent judges by humane and prudent estimate may so judge them then they are to be declared Hereticks and avoided And if this were not true it were vaine that the Apostle commands us to avoid an Heretick For no externall act can passe upon a man for a crime that is not cognoscible Now every man that erres though in a matter of consequence Numb 12. so long as the foundation is intire cannot be suspected justly guilty of a crime to give his error a formality of heresy for we see many a good man miserably deceiv'd as we shall make it appeare afterwards and he that is the best amongst men certainely hath so much humility to think he may be easily deceiv'd and twenty to one but he is in some thing or other yet if his error be not voluntary and part of an ill life then because he lives a good life he is a good man and therefore no Heretick No man is a Heretick against his will And if it be pretended that every man that is deceived is therefore proud because he does not submit his understanding to the authority of God or Man respectively and so his errour becomes a heresy To this I answer That there is no Christian man but will submit his understanding to God and believes whatsoever he hath said but alwayes provided he knowes that God hath said so else he must doe his duty by a readinesse to obey when he shall know it But for obedience or humility of the understanding towards men that is a thing of another consideration and it must first be made evident that his understanding must be submitted to men and
have suspended or cassated the Decree in case the Pope had then disavowed it For besides the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy the 13 th and 55 th Canons of that Councell are expressely against the custome of the Church of Rome But this particular is involved in that new Question whether the Pope be above a Councell Now since the Contestation of this Question there was never any free or lawfull Councell * Vid. postea de Concil Sinvessane §. 6. N. 9. that determined for the Pope it is not likely any should and is it likely that any Pope will confirm a Councell that does not For the Councell of Basil is therefore condemn'd by the last Lateran which was an Assembly in the Popes own Palace and the Councell of Constance is of no value in this Question and slighted in a just proportion as that Article is disbelieved But I will not much trouble the Question with a long consideration of this particular the pretence is senselesse and illiterate against reason and experience and already determin'd by S. Austin sufficiently as to this particular Epist. 162. ad Glorium Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicaverunt non bonos judices fuisse Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari ut si male judicasse convicti essent eorum sententiae solverentur For since Popes may be parties may be Simoniacks Schismaticks Hereticks it is against reason that in their own causes they should be judges or that in any causes they should be superior to their judges And as it is against reason so is it against all experience too for the Councell Sinvessanum as it said was conven'd to take Cognisance of Pope Marcellinus and divers Councels were held at Rome to give judgement in the causes of Damasus Sixtus the III Symmachus and Leo III and IV as is to be seen in Platina and the Tomes of the Councels And it is no answer to this and the like allegations to say in matters of fact and humane constitution the Pope may be judg'd by a Councell but in matters of Faith all the world must stand to the Popes determination and authoritative decision For if the Pope can by any colour pretend to any thing it is to a suprem Judicature in matters Ecclesiasticall positive and of fact and if he failes in this pretence he will hardly hold up his head for any thing else for the ancient Bishops deriv'd their Faith from the fountaine and held that in the highest tenure even from Christ their Head but by reason of the Imperiall * Vide Concil Chalced act 15. City it became the principall Seat and he surpriz'd the highest Judicature partly by the concession of others partly by his own accidentall 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 Generall Act. ult can 21. Synod which if it be sense is pertinent to this Question for Generall Councels are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam By audactèr as is supposed is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably but if to give sentence against him bee wholy forbidden it is non-sense for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance if they have no power of giving sentence unlesse it were to deserre it to a superiour Judge which in this case cannot be supposed for either the Pope himselfe is to judge his own cause after their examination of him or the Generall Councell is to judge him So that although the Councell is by that Decree enjoyn'd to proceed modestly and warily yet they may proceed to sentence or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent But to cleare all I will instance in matters of Question and opinion For not only some Councels have made their Decrees Numb 5. without or against the Pope but some Councels have had the Popes confirmation and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory but are known to be hereticall 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 Councell and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall and so esteem'd by the Church of Rome her selfe 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 legalitèr praedicatos And these Canons were used by Pope Nicholas I. in his Epistle ad Michaclem and by Innocent III. c. à multis extra de aetat ordinandorum So that now that wee may apply this there are seven Generall Councels which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour The * Vid. Socra l. z. c. 5. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Councell of Antioch A. D. 345. in which S. Athanasius was condemn'd The Councell of Millaine A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops The Councell of Ariminum consisting of 600 Bishops The second Councell of Ephesus A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresy was confirmed Gregor in Regist li. 3. caus 7. ait Concilium Numidiae errasse Concilium Aquisgrani erravit De ra ptore raptâdist 20. can de libellis in glossâ and the Patriarch Flavianus kild by the faction of Dioscorus The Councell of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus A. D. 730 And another at Constantinople 35 years after And lastly the Councel at Pisa 134 years since Now that these Generall Councels are condemn'd is a sufficient Argument that Councels may erre and it is no answer to say they were not confirm'd by the Pope for the Popes confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary or if it were yet even that also is an Argument that Generall Councels 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 Councell was actually observ'd in any Councell is so hard to determine that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Councell is authentick and sufficient probation 2. And that is the second thing I shall observe There are so many Questions concerning the efficient the forme the Numb 6. matter of Generall Councells and their manner of proceeding and their finall sanction that after a Question is determin'd by a Conciliary Assembly there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Councell upon its meere Authority or obtrude
office of power and great authority p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendome p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supream Church Officer p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him onely the Pastor of the Church p. 145 26 And Doctor p. 149 27 And Pontifex And Sacerdos p. 150 28 And these were a distinct order from the rest p. 156 29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree p. 160 30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation p. 198 34 Power of Iurisdiction p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 35 Vniversall obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopall license p. 251 38 Church-goods reserved to Episcopal dispensatiō 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Dioces or to travell without leave of the Bishop p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased p. 267 41 Bishops onely did vote in Councels and neither Presbyters nor People p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks p. 292 43 The Bishops Iurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes p. 295 44 Their Iurisdiction was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary p. 323 46 They are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop p. 327 47 And Hereticks p. 329 48 Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great honour p. 335 49 And trusted with affaires of Secular interest p. 351 50 And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church p. 375 ERRATA PAg. 21. line 8. insert except S. John Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters read Bishops Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy insert c. l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers OF THE Sacred Order and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION APOSTOLICALL TRADITION Catholick practise c. IN all those accursed machinations which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church Inimicus homo that old superseminator of heresies and crude mischiefes hath indeavoured to be curiously compendious and with Tarquin's device put are summ a papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium The Priests but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all Tolleimpios Polycarpus requiratur Away with these pedling persecutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lay the axe at the root of the tree Insomuch that in Rome from S. Peter and S. Paul to S. Sylvester thirty three Bishops of Rome in immediate succession suffered an Honourable and glorious Martyrdome unlesse * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur Saith Platina but that is wholly uncertaine Meltiades be perhaps excepted whom Eusebius and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius Conteret caput ejus was the glorious promise Christ should break the Divell's head and though the Divell 's active part of the Duell was farre lesse yet he would venture at that too even to strike at the heads of the Church capita vicaria for the head of all was past his striking now And this I say he offered to doe by Martyrdome but that insteed of breaking crown'd them His next onset was by Iulian and occidere Presbyterium that was his Province To shut up publick Schooles to force Christians to ignorance to impoverish and disgrace the Clergy to make them vile and dishonourable these were his arts and he did the Divell more service in this finenesse of undermining then all the open battery of the ten great Rammes of persecution But this would not take For that which is without cannot defile a man So it is in the Church too Cedunt in bonum all violences ab extrà But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces reunited them at Nice at Constantinople at Ephesus at Chalcedon at Carthage at Rome and in every famous place of Christendome and by God's goodnesse and the Bishops industry Catholick religion was conserved in Vnity and integrity Well! however it is Antichrist must come at last and the great Apostacy foretold must be and this not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity When ye heare of warres and rumors of warres be not afraid said our B. Saviour the end is not yet It is not warre that will doe this great work of destruction for then it might have been done long ' ere now What then will doe it We shall know when we see it In the meane time when we shall find a new device of which indeed the platforme was laid in Aërius and the Acephali brought to a good possibility of compleating a thing that whosoever shall heare his ears shall tingle an abhomination of desolation standing where it ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the praeparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostacy For if Antichrist shall exalt himselfe above all that is called God and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such Dii vocati Dii facti I think we have great reason to be suspitious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very neer conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concernes will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdome by which he governes all Christendome so themselves have taught us so that in case it be proved that Episcopacy is that government then they to use their own expressions throw Christ out of his Kingdome and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our feares in this and all things else may be vaine that what we feare may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and praeparatory to the great Apostacy I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of 1. times for now after that
these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together our expectation of the Great revelation is very neer accomplishing what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiasticall government contrary to the faith practice of Christendome may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy 2. if we consider the finall cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schisme and Heresy So in 1. ad Titū S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTUR And therefore if Vnity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schisme and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schisme is a division for things either personall or accidentall which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tryed there to receive their first and last breath except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing and ordering persons and things accidentall and substantiall and therefore a direct confronting of Schisme not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schismes alwaies will be and this by divine prediction which clearly showes the necessity of perpetuall Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himselfe ordaining it who made the prophecy or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least who knew the prophecy yet to be sure these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostacy for then were not the houres turned into minutes an universall ruine should seize all Christendome No flesh should be saved if those daies were not shortned is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schismes must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordayn'd as the remedy and obex of Schisme either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognisance of causes spirituall or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How farre these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves despergentur and I believe it will be verified at the comming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountaines as sheep having no sheapheard I am not new in this conception I learn't it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus Epist. 55. ad hoc ECCLESIae PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrociùs atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragin grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himselfe in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock §. 1. Christ did institute a governement in his Church Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Simler de rep Helvet fol. 148. 172. Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the
giving of a jurisdiction an erection of a judicatory and is all the way direction for his proceeding in causes criminall appears most evidently v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the elect Angells that thou observe these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without prejudging the cause of any maÌ„ before it comes in open contestatioÌ„ under publick test of witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing nothing for favour or partiality Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory then these mandates of S. Paul Lastly to make up his Episcopall function compleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders Lay hands suddenly on no man sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat Vers. 22. custodiri .... Ne facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem .... peccat enim si non probat sic ordinet Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est Haec Episcopus custodiens castum se exhibebit religioni cujus rei in futuro praemium consequetur So S. Ambrose upon the place who is so farre from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops consistory that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the judicature and coercitive jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholike and unquestion'd Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have beene ordain'd Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul sed Lucas saith he in actibus Apostolorum Lib. 3. c. 4. plurimos ejus socios memorat sicut Timothei Titi quorum alter in Ephesi Episcopus ... ab eo ordinatus praeficitur S. Ambrose affirmes that S. Paul having Praefat. in 1. Tim. ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopall office Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his owne person and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united concurrent testimony of S. a Contrhaeres Vincentius b contr Marcion l. 5. Tertullian S. c hom â—0 in 1. Timoth. Chrysostome S. d in 6. cap. in 1. Tim. Ambrose e in 1. Tim. 4. c. 5. c. Oecumenius f hoeres 75. Epiphanius g ad Timoth. cap. 4. Primasius and S. h in Pastor part 2. c. 11. Acts. 11. Gregory As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madnesse and stupidity of Aërius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus Presbyterum ne objurges c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the generall Councell of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From S. Timothy untill now there have beene 27 Bishops or dayned in Ephesus Who desires a multitude of testimonies though enough already have deposed in the cause beside the evidence of Scripture may to these adde that saying of S. Chrysostome that to Timothy was committed Jn Titum 1. Philip. In 1. Tim. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Theodoret calling him Episcopum Asianorum the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy which if it were not writ by S. Paul yet at least will prove a primitive record and very Ancient the fragment of the Martyrdome of S. Timothy in Photius i De script Eccles. S. Ierome k In praefat in 1. Timoth. Theophylact Biblioth Photij n. 254. l De vitâ morte 88. 87 88. Isidore and m Lib. 2. c. 34. 2. Tim. 4. 5. Nicephorus And now all is well if after all this Timothy doe not prove an Evangelist for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause and though neither pertinent nor true yet shall be laid in the ballance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity But doe the work of an Evangelist saith S. Paul therefore it is cleare S. Timothy was no Bishop No was not That 's hard But let us try however 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those are the next words fulfill thy Deaconship And therefore he was no Bishop As well this as the other for if Deaconship doe not exclude Episcopacy why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist as well as his being an Evangelist exclude his being a Bishop Whether is higher a Bishoprick or the office of an Evangelist If a Bishops office be higher and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist then a Bishop cannot be a Priest and a Priest cannot be a Deacon and an Evangelist can be neither for that also is thought to be higher then them both But if the office of an Evangelist be higher then as long as they are not disparate much lesse destructive of each other they may have leave to consist in subordination For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment and a Bishoprick of fixt residence that will be considered by and by 2. All the former discourse is upon supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyes the office of a Deacon and so it may as well as S. Pauls other phrase implyes S. Timothy to be an Evangelist For if we marke it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe the worke not the office of an Evangelist And what 's that We may see it in the verses immediatly going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy performe viz. to preach to be instant in season and out of season to reprove to rebuke to exhort there is no harme done a Bihop may nay he must doe all this 3. Consider we what an Evangelist is and thence take our estimate for the present 1. He that writes the story of the Gospell is an Evangelist so the Greek Scholiast calls him And in this sense indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist but yet if he had he might have been a Bishop because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop sure enough for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church as we shall see hereafter so farre as concernes our Question But then again an Apostle might be an Evangelist S. Matthew was and S. Iohn was and the Apostolicall dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopall preheminence for I have proved these two names Apostle and Bishop to
let it rest upon * Apologiae pro Ignatio Vedelius a man who is no waies to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of a Lib. 3. hist. c. 30. Eusebius b De Script Eccles. S. Hierome and c Apud Eusebquem Latine reddidit Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for naturall and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should doe 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 affaire and see what is gotten in the bargaine For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gaine 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 Iurisdiction But as yet I am in the generall demonstration of obedience The Councell of Laodicea having specified some Can. 56. particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summes them up thus * Idem videre est apud Damasum Epist. de Chorepiscopis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them doe nothing without the precept and counsell of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Councell 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 Can. 19. nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in Vnaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere saies the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Councell according to the Latine of Isidore The same thing is in the first Councell of Toledo the very Can. 20. same words for which I cited the first Councell of Arles viz. That Presbyters doe nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop * Esto SUBIECTUS Epist. ad Nepotian PONTIFICI Tuo quasi animae parentemsuscipe It is the counsell of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soule 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 soules of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiasticall orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergy in matters Spirituall with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must governe the Church or else the Clergy must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition then a tyranny To say that the Laity should governe the Church when all Ecclesiasticall Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it saies 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 called so * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spirituall are inferior to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soule be rul'd by them with whom their Soules 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 Councells 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 chiefe 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 maine S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Iames 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 Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this businesse up compleat all these authorities of great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those severall Churches respectively but meere derivations from tradition Apostolicall for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 th Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their soules * And if a Presbyter shall contemne his owne Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32. Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopall dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must governe and give them lawes It was particularly instanc'd in the case of S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these Lawes so he reckoning up the extent Lib. 5. cap. 28. of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction * of Bishops § 36. Appointing them to be Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity THe Bishops were Ecclesiasticall Iudges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spirituall I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for soules they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coërcion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coërcion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent person's makes the Bishop's hand to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 33. If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated BY THE BISHOP he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him vnlesse the BISHOP THAT CENSUR'D HIM be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Councell only
it is Can. 5. permitted that any one may appeale to a Synod of BISHOPS si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himselfe wrong'd by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon ut ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas EPISCOPORUM SUORUM OFFENSAS meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel IPSI EPISCOPO SUO UISUM FUERIT humaniorum circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their owne Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firme and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speakes indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocesse and jurisdiction The fourth Councell of Carthage gives in expresse termes the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop Can. 59. calling ayd from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractary and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergy-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Councell with frivolous appeales and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemne him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Councell of Antioch is yet more particular in it's Sanction for this affayre intimating a cleare distinction of proceeding in the causes of a Bishop and the other of Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a PRIEST OR DEACON BY HIS OWNE BISHOP if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopelesse of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Iudge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firme omnimodò in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo .... privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo ..... Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appeare at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturbe the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Adde to this the first Canon of the same Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c If any one be excommunicate by his owne Bishop c as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Iudge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the AUDIENTIA EPISCOPALIS The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9. If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminall but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop under paine of the Canon * I end this with the at estation of the Councell of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or Can. 13. 14. of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP that other Bishop must by no meanes receive him into his communion Thus farre we have matter of publike right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge 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 Apostolicall Canons of the Generall Councells of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councells of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cognisance 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 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 mention'd in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmaticall resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose 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 suspition * Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing Epist. 10. to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was
the Bishop was Iudge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocesse that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency that his censures were firme 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't by them either in full Councell 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 unlesse in cases of appeale 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 Imperiall Constitutions Novel constit 123. c. 11. For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognisance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speake in most large and comprehensive termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to doe what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Councell of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though then S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proofe of you whether ye be obedient 2. Corinth 2. 9. IN ALL THINGS A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universall obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runne in descention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must doe NOTHING without your BISHOP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in NOTHING Vbi suprà The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgement or cognisance so the Councell of Antioch Ca. 9. * But these Universall expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himselfe Ye must without your Bishop doe nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiasticall persons it is an Ecclesiasticall power they are indowed with it is for a spirituall end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of soules and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopall cognisance And what things are those 1. Then it is certaine that since Christ hath professed his Kingdome 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 Host is Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunall did take cognisance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christ'ned And these are all actions civill all publike violations of justice all breach of Municipall lawes These the Church hath nothing to doe with unlesse by the favour of Princes and common-wealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annull such pious vowes is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unlesse there was sinne 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 it's new distinctive Principles I say by it's new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the lawes of nature there the secular tribunall 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 republike 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 Clergy to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchicall rites and ceremonies liturgyes and publike formes of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologyes tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome 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 pretious soules may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people 3. There are somethings of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution and these are of double cognisance the secular power and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencyes of Clergy-men who are both Clergy and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflected a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in severall ages upon the exigence of severall occasions and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the common-wealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiasticall because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things
reports that Hosius Bishop of Epist. ad Solitar Corduba president in the Nicene Councell said it was the abhomination of delolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affayres Res Suidas in vitâ Leontij alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity * To these adde the Councell of Venice for it is very considerable in Can. 9. A. D. 453. this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquà adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants but the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must heare the cause but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict for so Novell constit 123. Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall Secular Iudges 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 decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae lib. 7. epist. 66. committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already § 36. and § 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 * Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1. Tim. 5. 1. lib. 1. de offic c. 20. S. August lib. 3. contra Crescon Epist. 137. Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure for to pretend such slight aëry imaginations against the constant knowne open Catholike practice and doctrine of the Church and history of all ages is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of lay-Elders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white and watry 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 Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would faine have beene it is knowne so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges 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 doe no service in the present Question I am only to cleare 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-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasticall 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 Gebenna and so to the place of the neerest denomination The objection is from S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Elders that rule well be 1. Tim. 5. 17. accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word doctrine especially they therefore all Elders doe 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. Pauls sense not so much to doe one as to doe the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme and betook himselfe 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 S. 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 severall 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 guift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the office and therefore the sense of the words is this that all Presbyters must be honour'd but especially they that Prophecy doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Adde 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 borne and yet a Godly Bishop and S. Austin his Presbyter preach'd for him The same case might occurre in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperiall Citties and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Ierusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophecy they were particular guifts given severally to severall men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some Prophecyed some interpreted and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolicall was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Lay-man if a Church officer