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
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.
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
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
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
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
Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by thesecular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIA are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of or may not the secular power find out some externall compulsory instead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A
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
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
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
bibliotheca capit It is impossible for any industry to consider so many particulars in the infinite numbers of questions as are necessary to be consider'd before we can with certainty determine any And after all the considerations which we can have in a whole age we are not sure not to be deceived The obscurity of some questions the nicety of some articles the intricacy of some revelations the variety of humane understandings the windings of Logicke the tricks of adversaries the subtilty of Sophisters the ingagement of educations personall affections the portentous number of writers the infinity of authorities the vastnesse of some arguments as consisting in enumeration of many particulars the uncertainty of others the severall degrees of probability the difficulties of Scripture the invalidity of probation of tradition the opposition of all exteriour arguments to each other and their open contestation the publicke violence done to authors and records the private arts and supplantings the falsifyings the indefatigable industry of some men to abuse all understandings and all perswasions into their owne opinions these and thousands more even all the difficulty of things and all the weaknesses of man all the arts of the Devill have made it impossible for any man in so great variety of matter not to be deceived No man pretends to it but the Pope and no man is more deceived then he is in that very particular 3. From hence proceeds a danger which is consequent to this proceeding for if we who are so apt to be deceived so insecure Numb 4. in our resolution of questions disputable should persecute a dis-agreeing person we are not sure we doe not fight against God for if his proposition be true and persecuted then because all truth derives from God this proceeding is against God and therefore this is not to be done upon Gamaliel's ground lest peradventure we be found to fight against God of which because we can have no security at least in this case we have all the guilt of a doubtfull or an uncertaine Conscience For if there be no security in the thing as I have largely proved the Conscience in such cases is as uncertaine as the question is and if it be not doubtfull where it is uncertaine it is because the man is not wise but as confident as ignorant the first without reason and the second without excuse And it is very disproportionable for a man to persecute another certainly for a proposition that if he were wise he would know is not certaine at least the other person may innocently be uncertaine of it If he be kill'd he is certainly kill'd but if he be call'd hereticke it is not so certaine that he is an hereticke It were good therefore that proceedings were according to evidence and the rivers not swell over the banks nor a certaine definitive sentence of death pass'd upon such perswasions which cannot certainly be defin'd And this argument is of so much the more force because we see that the greatest persecutions that ever have been were against truth even against Christianity it selfe and it was a prediction of our blessed Saviour that persecution should be the lot of true beleevers and if we compute the experience of suffering Christendome and the prediction that truth should suffer with those few instances of suffering hereticks it is odds but persecution is on the wrong side and that it is errour and heresie that is cruell and tyrannicall especially since the truth of Jesus Christ and of his Religion are so meeke so charitable and so mercifull and we may in this case exactly use the words of S. Paul But as then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the spirit even so it is now and so it ever will be till Christs second coming Numb 5. 4. Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person armes all the Quo comperto illi in nostram pemiciem licentiore audacia grassabuntur S Aug. epist. ad Dona. Procons Contr. ep Fund ita nunc debeo sustinére tantâ patientiâ vobiscum agere quantâ mecum egerunt proximi mei cum in vestro dogmate rabiosus ac cacus errâ—rem world against himselfe and all pious people of his owne perswasion when the scales of authority return to his adversary and attest his contradictory and then what can he urge for mercy for himselfe or his party that sheweth none to others If he sayes that he is to be spared because he beleeves true but the other was justly persecuted because he was in errour he is ridiculous For he is as confidently beleeved to be a heretick as he beleeves his adversary such and whether he be or no being the thing in question of this he is not to be his owne judge but he that hath authority on his side will be sure to judge against him So that what either side can indifferently make use of it is good that neither would because neither side can with reason sufficient doe it in prejudice of the other If a man will say that every man must take his adventure and if it happens authority to be with him he will persecute his adversaries and if it turnes against him he will bear it as well as he can and hope for a reward of Martyrdome and innocent suffering besides that this is so equall to be said of all sides and besides that this is a way to make an eternall disunion of hearts and charities and that it will make Christendome nothing but a shambles and a perpetuall butchery and as fast as mens wits grow wanton or confident or proud or abused so often there will be new executions and massacres Besides all this it is most unreasonable and unjust as being contrariant to those Lawes of Justice and Charity whereby we are bound with greater zeale to spare and preserve an innocent then to condemne a guilty person and there 's lesse malice and iniquity in sparing the guilty then in condemning the good Because it is in the power of men to remit a guilty person to divine judicature and for divers causes not to use severity but in no case is it lawfull neither hath God at all given to man a power to condemne such persons as cannot be proved other than pious and innocent And therefore it is better if it should so happen that we should spare the innocent person and one that is actually deceiv'd then that upon the turn of the wheele the true believers should be destroyed And this very reason he that had authority sufficient and absolute to make Lawes was pleased to urge as a reasonable inducement Numb 6. for the establishing of that Law which he made for the indemnity of erring persons It was in the parable of the tares mingled with the good seed in Agro dominico the good seed Christ himselfe being the interpreter are the Children of the Kingdome the tares are the children of the wicked one upon this comes
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
first the Episcopall chayre for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we adde what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sense of Scripture and the Catholike Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it followes from the premises and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs owne designation and ordination Apostolicall made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolicall concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have beene But that this also was not a temporary businesse and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the S. Simeon to be his successor first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appeares by the ordination of S. Simeon the sonne of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium lacobi .... traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune lib. 3. hist. cap. 11. Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus Posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est lib 4. cap. 22. .... electione divinâ Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordayn'd Bishop by a Divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first haeres 66. Iames and next Simeon qui sub Trajano crucifixus est THe next Bishop we find ordayn'd by the Apostles § 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordayn'd by an Apostle appeares in Scripture For S. Paul impos'd hands on him that 's certayne Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum by the laying on of MY HANDS That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and 2. Tim. 1. 6. offices concredited to him 1. He was to be * 1. Tim. 1. 3. resident at Ephesus And although for the publike necessityes of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he liv'd and dyed as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasionall and when it was his Cure was supplyed by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopall deportment as is plaine A Bishop must be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. 1. Tim. 3. 3. S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards 1. Tim. 5. 1. either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young for a Bishop must be no striker but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostome Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compellest me to shed teares Suavitèr omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekely but yet so as to doe his office to keep all in their severall duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widdowes Give all these things in charge Command all to doe 1. Tim. 5. 7. their duty Command but not objurgate Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage For indeed haeres 7 5. it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his jurisdiction over Presbyters and people if he had had no jurisdiction and coercitive authority at all Nay and howsoever S. Paul forbids to Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it intimating upon great occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be but an urging or an exhortation 2. Tim. 4. 2. is not all for S. Paul gives him coercitive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widdowes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger Widdowes viz. à collegio viduarum ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae Over Presbyters for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters of which if he was not to take cognisance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation in foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminall That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power TO TAKE COGNISANCE in causes criminall then for his punishing in such causes it followes in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 5. 20. Reprehend them publikely that is disgrace them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecorus .... 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad γ. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul is to call them to publick account that 's one part of the jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to examine Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give an account of one's life idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. c. Iliad But the words in S. Paul will cleare this businesse Let them that sinne be publikly sham'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may feare A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they feare to sinne Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for feare of being punished Adde to all this that here is in this chapter the plaine
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
Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiasticall tribunall and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which shee might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a very secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appeal'd to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat he betrayes the individuall and inseparable right of holy Church For her censures shee may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is beg'd or borrow'd none of her owne nor of a fit edge to be us'd in her abscissions and coërcions * I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of Can. 39. so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocesse The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge And because our Scene lyes herein Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soule any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheepe heare his voice and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him viz in matters of spirituall import * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regall power but Bishops in his Sacerdotall and Propheticall * So that the King hath a Supreme Regall power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdome became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of soules and in these also all the externall compulsory and jurisdiction in his owne For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himselfe also upon the same termes becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotall authority And therefore the Kingdome and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keyes are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophet â gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their severall excellencies the Highest powers under heaven *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives were not both the piety and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience * And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and Epist. ad Philadelph disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopopareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop * This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis Lib. de dignit Sacerd cap. 2. nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potest is ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and incausis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. 2. the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocesse to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the lawes of Christendome The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperour exactly the same per omniae as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19. to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Millain showes that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had Theodor. lib. 5 c. 18. by repentance washed out the bloud that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Emperour and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. quod Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not
let him communicate till hee had wash't away his sinnes by repentance And the Emperour did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuer at suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiasticall Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command Homil. 83. in 26. Matth. to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captaine a Consull or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater then his If thou darest not remove him tell it mee I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more errour in the managing Church-censures then in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandall or danger to her selfe or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a forraine enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinterest in the allegeance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designes and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawfull to inflict thē things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's In 3. partis Supplem q. 22 a. 5. Vide Aug. ep 75. Gratian dist 24. q. 2. c. Sihabet sed ibi Princeps non inseritur sed tantùm in glossâ ordinariâ but is indeed found in the Ordinary Glosse upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Common wealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognisance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of soules such a power quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognisance viz. things spirituall and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Common-wealth And this I the rather noted to show how those men would mend themselves that cry downe the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognisance of all causes whatsoever which are either sinnes directly or by reduction * All crimes which Vide the book of Order of Excomm in Scotland the Hist. of Scotland Admonit 2. p. 46. Knox his exhortation to England by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we adde this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sinne there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspitious scandalous or criminall true or imaginary reall actions or personall in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or reall injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullify all Courts and judicatories besides their owne and being for this their cognisance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes IMPERFECT in their Consistory no appeale from them but they shall heare and determine with finall resolution and it will be sinne and therefore punishable to complaine of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the Modesty of their severall demands and the reasonablenesse and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudentiall motives to be put into ballance to weigh downe this Question the cause would soone be determin'd and the little finger of Presbytery not only in it's exemplary and tryed practises but in its dogmaticall pretensions is heavier then the loynes nay then the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldome happens otherwise but that they who usurpe a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawfull power are faire and moderate BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances § 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopall license of Episcopall Iurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shewes the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendome S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Smyrn It is not lawfull without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a generall interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I doe not here dispute the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure doe any offices without Episcopall licence but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the primitive Church This is sufficient to show to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publike disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should
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
Adversaries out of doores They shall not come neere their blessed Mount of Gerezim but fastning an Anathema on them let them goe to Ebal and curse there And now I wonder not that these Disciples were very angry at them who had lost the true Religion and neglected the offices of humanity to them that kept it They might goe neere now to make it a cause of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianzene speaks might seem to Apologize Orat. 12. for them and so it might if it had not led them to indiscreet and uncharitable zeale But men care not how farre they goe if they doe but once thinke they can make God a party of their Quarrell For when Religion which ought to be the antidote of our malice proves its greatest incentive our uncharitablenesse must needs runne faster to a mischiefe by how much that which stopt it's course before drives it on with the greater violence And therefore as it is ordinary for charity to be called coldnesse in Religion so it is as ordinary for a pretence of Religion to make cold charity The present case of the Disciples and the same spirit which for the same pretended cause is takenup by the persons of the day proves all this true with whom fire and fagot is esteem'd the best argument to convince the understanding and the Inquisitors of hereticall pravity the best Doctors and subtlest Disputants determining all with a Viris ignem fossā Decret Carol. quinti pro Flandris mulieribus For thus wee had like to have suffered it was mistaken Religion that mov'd these Traytors to so damnable a Conspiracy not for any defence of their owne cause but for extirpation of ours For else what grievances did they groan under In quos Orat 2. in Iulian eorum populum exaestuantem sollicitavimus quibus vitae periculum attulimus It was Nazianzen's question to the Apostate Give me leave to consider it as appliable to our present case and try if can make a just discovery of the cause that mov'd these Traytors to so accursed a Conspiracy 1 Then there was no cause at all given them by us none put to death for being a Roman Catholique nor any of them punish'd for his Religion Vid. L. Burleighs booke called Execution for Treason not religion King Iames his declaration to all Christian Kings and Princes and the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his speech in Starre-chamber in Burtons case This hath beene the constant attestation of our Princes and State since the first Lawes made against Recusants the thing it selfe will bear them record From primo of Elizabeth to undecimo the Papists made no scruple of comming to our Churches Recusancy was not then so much as a Chrysome not an Embrio But when Pius quintus sent forth his Breves of Excommunication and Deposition of the Queen then first they forbore to pray with us or to have any religious communion This although every where knowne yet being a matter of fact and so as likely to be denied by others as affirmed by us without good evidence see it therefore affirmed expresly by an Act of Parliament in Decimo tertio of Elizabeth which specifies this as one inconvenience and ill consequence of the Bull. Whereby hath grown great disobedience and boldnesse in many not only to withdraw and absent themselves from divine service now most Godly set forth and used within this Realme but also have thought themselves discharged of all obedience c. Not only Recusancy but like wise disobedience therefore both Recusancy and disobedience Two yeares therefore after this Bull this Statute was made if it was possible to nullify the effects of it to hinder its execution and if it might be by this meanes to keep them as they had been before in Communion with the Church of England and obedience to her Majesty This was the first Statute that concerned them in speciall but yet their Religion was not medled with For this Statute against execution of the Popes Bulls was no more thē what had been established by Act of Parliament in the 16 th yeare of Richard the second by which it was made praemunire to purchase Bulls from Rome and the delinquents in this kinde with all their abettors fautors procurators and maintainers to be referred to the Kings Councell for farther punishment There was indeed this severity expressed in the Act of 130 of the Queene that the putting them in Execution should be Capitall and yet this severity was no more then what was inflicted upon the Bishop of Ely in Edward the thirds time for publishing of a Bull against the Earle of Chester without the Kings leave and on the Bishop of Carlile in the time of Henry the fourth for the like offence Thus farre our Lawes are innocent But when this Statute did not take the good effect for which it was intended neither keeping them in their ancient Communion not obedience but for all this Mayne Campian and many others came as the Popes Emissaries for execution of the Bull the State proceeded to a farther severity making Lawes against Recusancy against Seditious and Trayterous Bookes and against the residence of Romish Priests in England making the first fineable with a pecuniary mulct the two later Capitall as being made of a Treasonable nature Of these in order 1 The mulct which was imposed for Recusancy was not soul mony or paid for Religion and that for these reasons 1. Because it is plaine Religion did not make them absent themselves from our Churches unlesse they had changed their Religion since the Bull came over For if Religion could consist with their Communion with us before the Bull as it 's plain it did then why not after the Bull unlesse it be part of their Religion to obey the Pope rather then to obey God commanding us to obey our Prince 2. Their Recusancy was an apparent mischiefe to our Kingdome and it was the prevention or diversion of this that was the only or speciall and of these Lawes The mischiefe is apparent these two waies 1. Because by their Recusancy they gave attestation that they held the Bull to be valid for else why should they after the Bull deny their Communion which before they did not Either they must think the Queen for a just cause and by a just power excommunicate or why did they separate from her Communion Now if the Queen by vertue of the Bull was excommunicate why should they stop here She was by the same deposed they absolved from all Allegeance to her and commanded to take arms against her I confesse it is no good argument of it selfe to say The Pope might excommunicate the Queen therefore depose her from her Kingdome But this concludes with them sufficiently with whom excommunication not only drives from Spiritualls but deprives of Temporalls and is not to mend our lives but to take them away I speak how it is in the case of Princes and I shall anon prove
it for they being publike persons from whose Deposition more may be gotten are like to suffer more ui ex tunc ipse Pontifex vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos terram exponat Catholic is occupandam as they are taught by Pope Innocent the third in the eight Lateran Councell such is their Excommunication for matter of Heresy as was this pretended in the Queenes case so that in respect of them the danger was apparent 2 It is plaine that Recusancy and disobedience came actually hand in hand I say not that one was the issue of the other but that they were coetaneous for the same persons that moved them to Recusancy by vertue of the Bull moved them to the execution of it per omnia Now see whither this would tend They by Recusancy were better able to judge of their forces in England and what party they were able to make for execution of the Bull whilest by that as by a discriminative cognisance they were pointed at as Abettors of the Catholike cause Thus farre they suffered not for their Religion or conscience unlesse it were against their conscience to be good subjects and then it was not Religion at least not Christian that was inconsistent with their Loyalty so hitherto inrespect of us their machination was altogether causelesse 2. For the second I mean the writing publishing of Seditious Trayterous Books I shall not need to say any thing in defence of its being made Capitall though sometimes they accuse our laws for it for Apud Linwood de senten excommunicat Item omnes illos excommunicationis innodanus sententia qui pacem tranquillitatem Domini Regis Regni iniuriose perturhare praesumunt qui iura Domini Regis iniuslè detinere contendunt they were ever so of a high nature Treasonable the Publishers of thē by the Canons of the Church were ipsofacto excōmunicate This I noted because the same censure involves more by vertue of the same Canon I mean not only the seditious Libellers but impugners of the Kings Regalties as also the Bringers Publishers and Executioners of the Bull as is to be seene in the constitution of Arch-bishop Stephen in a Councell held at Oxford But secondly whether they were or were not it matters nothing this I suppose was no part of their Religion therefore this might be made Treason and yet their Religion and peace of conscience undistarbed 3. But the next is the main outcry of all the very Conclamatum est of the Catholique cause if suffered it was made Treason to be a Priest or at least if any of their Priests should be found in England he should be adjudged a Traytor and these Lawes were not yet repealed but then in execution When certaine Sycophants told Philip of Macedon that some of his discontented Subjects called him Tyrant his answer was Rudes sunt Macedones scapham vocant scapham I wish these men who object this had the same ingenuity and would acknowledge that the rudenesse of a Macedonian tel-troth is no apparent calumny And truly as the case then stood it was no worse For consider that the statute against Priests was not made till sixteen years after the Bull of Pius quintus and after much evidence both by the confession of some Priests themselves and divers Lay-persons that at least many of them came into England with this errand that they might instigate the Queenes liege people to the Execution of it This is very plaine in the case of Mayne the Iesuit and M. Tregion who were executed 1577. at Launston for the same businesse The state could not certainly know what would be the issue but yet could not but think it likely to produce more and worse consequences for the future Leges autē justae in facta constituuntur quia futura Tacitus lib. 3. Annal. in incerto sunt The Queen then providing for her safety banished these Priests out of her dominions This was all and this done with so much lenity and moderation as if of purpose to render good for their evill such was her innocence and yet to provide for her safety such was her prudence She gave them forty daies time of preparation for their journey impos'd no penalty for their longer stay in case that any of them were lesse healthfull or that the winds were crosse or that the wether serv'd not provided that during their stay they gave security for their due obedience to her laws and that they should attempt nothing against her person or government for this was all she aim'd at but if they obeyed not the Proscriptiō having no just cause to the contrary such as were expressed in the Act then it should be adjudged their errand was not right therefore not their Religion but their disobedience Treasonable This was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the severity of this state against them now first I shall briefly shew that this proscription which was the highest penalty was for just cause as the case then stood and deserved on their part 2. It was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscription their stay should be made Treason 1. Because the Priests did generally preach the Popes power either directly over temporalls or else in order to spiritualls of which the Pope being judge it would come to the same issue and this was dangerous to the peace of the Kingdome and intrenched too much upon the Regalty In particular the case of bringing from the See of Rome and publishing of Bulls was by the Lords of the Parliament in the sixteenth year of Richard the second judg'd to be cleerely in derogation of the Kings Crown and of his Regalty as it is well known and hath been of a long time known and therefore they protested together and every one severally by himselfe that they would be with the same Crown and Regalty in these cases specially and in all other cases which shall be attempted against the same Crown and Regalty in all points with all their power I hope then if the State in the time of Queen Elizabeth hà ving farre greater reason then ever shall judge that these Bulles the publishing of them the Preaching of their validity and reconciling by vertue of them her Subjects to the See of Rome be derogatory to her Crown and Regalty I see no reason She should be frighted from her just defence with the bugbear of pretended Religion for if it was not against Religion then why is it now I confesse there is a reason for it to wit because now the Popes power is an Article of Faith as I shall shew anon but then it was not with them any more then now it is with us but whether this will convince any man of reason I leave it to himselfe to consider But one thing is observeable in that Act of Parliament of Richard the second I meane this clause as it is well knowne and hath been of
Baronius concerning the book of Iohannes de Roa who sometimes had been a Iesuit but then chang'd his order and became Augustinian saying it was sentenc'd to the Baron tom 6. Annal. An. Dom 447. n 8 fire before it had escaped the presse And good reason Nihil enim tale à Patribus societatis didicit Good men they never taught him any such doctrine as is contained in that pestilent book de iuribus principalibus defendendis moderandis iustè Now if this be heresy or like it to preach such a Doctrine then likely it will be judg'd heresy in Princes to doe so that is to hold their crownes without acknowledgment of subordination to S. Peters chaire And if it be not heresy to doe so it is in their account as bad for so the Iesuits in their Veritas defensa against the Action of Arnald the Advocate affirme in terminis that the actions of some Kings of France against the Pope in defence of their Regalties were but examples of rebellion and spots to disgrace the purity of the French Lillies 5. Put case the Pope should chance to mistake in his sentence against a Prince for the cause of heresy yet for all this mistake he can secure any man to take away the Princes life or Kingdome His Lawyers will be his security for this point For although in this case the deposition of the Prince should be and be acknowledged to be against Gods law the Prince being neither Tyrant nor heretick yet his Holinesse commanding it takes away the unlawfulnesse of it by his dispensation So D. Marta and for this doctrine he quotes Hostiensis Felinus Gratus the Abbat the De Iurisd cas 64. n. 14. Arch bishop of Florence Ancharanus Iohannes Andreas Laurentius de Pinu and some others Indeed his Divines deny this sed contrarium tamen observatur as it 's very well observed by the same Doctor Num. 17. for he brings the practise example of Pope Martin the fifth Iulius the second Celestine the third Alexander the third and Sixtus quintus all which dispensed in cases acknowledged to be expressely against Gods law 6. Lastly How if the Pope should lay a claime to all the Kingdomes of the world as belonging ro S. Peters patrimony by right of spirituall preheminence I know no great security we have to the contrary For first It is known he hath claimed the Kingdome of England as feudatary to the See Apostolike Which when I considered I wondred a Rex Anglorū est subditus Romano Pontisici ratione directi domini◠quod in Regnum Angliae Hiberniae Romana habet Ecclesia Bellarm. Apol. adv R. Angl. c. 3. not at that new and insolent title which Mosconius gives his Holinesse of Desensor fidei He might have added the title of Rex Catholicus Christianissimus For D. Marta in his treatise of Iurisdiction which he dedicated to Paulus quintus hath that for an argumēt why he dedicated his Book to him because for sooth the Pope is the only Monarch of the World But of greater authority is that of Thomas Aquinas affirming the Pope to be the verticall top of all power Ecclesiasticall b De Maiest milit Eccles. c. 1. pag. 25. c Tibi à quo emanat omnis iurisdictio unicus in orbe Pontifex Imperator Rex omnium Principum superior rerumque personarum supremus Dominus Epist. Dedicat d 2 Sent dist 44. lib. 3. de Regim Princ. and Civill So that now it may be true which the Bishop of Patara told the Emperor in behalse of Pope Sylverius Multos esse Reges sed nullum talem qualis ille qui est Papa super Ecclesiam Lib. erat in Breviar de causâ Nestorian cap. 21. Mundi totius For these reasons I think it is true enough that the constituting the Pope the judge of Princes in the matter of deposition is of more danger then the thing it selfe The summe is this However schisme or heresy may be pretended yet it is but during the Popes pleasure that Kings or subjects shall remain firme in their mutuall necessitude For if our Prince bee but excommunicate or declar'd heretick then to be a good subject will be accounted no better then irreligion and Anti-Catholicisme If the conclusion be too hard and intolerable then so are the Premises and yet they passe for good Catholike doctrine among themselves But if truly and ex animo they are otherwise affected they should doe well to unsay what hath been said and declare themselves by publique authority against such doctrines And say whether or no their determinations shall be de fide If they be then all those famous Catholique Doctors Thomas Aquinas Bellarmine Creswell Mariana Emanuel Sá c. are heretiques and their Canons teach heresy and Many of their Popes to be condemn'd as hereticall for practising and teaching deposition of Princes by an authority usurp't against and in prejudice of the Christian faith But if their answers be not de fide then they had as good say nothing for the danger is not at all decreased because if there be Doctors on both sides by their own * Charity maintaind by Cath. cap. 7. assertion they may without sinne follow either but yet more safely if they follow the most received and the most authorized and whether this rule will lead them I will be judg'd by any man that hath considered the premises Briefly either this thing must remain in the same state it is and our Princes still expos'd to so extream hazards or else let his Holinesse seat himselfe in his chaire condemne these doctrines vow against their future practise limit his or do ad spiritualia containe himselfe within the limits of causes directly and meerely Ecclesiasticall disclaime all power so much as indirect over Princes temporalls and all this with an intent to oblige all Christendome Which when I see done I shall be most ready to believe that nothing in Popery doth either directly or by a necessary consequence destroy Loyalty to our lawfull Prince but not till then having so much evidence to the contrary Thus much was occasion'd by consideration of the cause of the Disciples Quaere which was when they saw this that their L. and M. for his difference in Religion was turned forth of doores which when they saw They said Lord It was well they ask'd at all and would not too hastily act what they too suddēly had intended but it was better that they ask'd Christ it had been the best warrant they could have had could they have obtain'd but a Magister dixit But this was not likely it was too strange a Question to aske of such a M r. A Magistro mansuetudinis licentiam crudelitat is Nothing could have come more crosse to his disposition His spirit never was addicted to blood unlesse it were to shed his owne Hee was a Prince of peace and set forth to us by all the Symboles of peace and