things with spirituall The holy Ghost teaches yet it is upon our co-operation our study and endeavour while we compare spirituall things with spirituall the holy Ghost is said to teach us because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation 3. For it is a rule of the Schools and there is much reason Numb 14. in it Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum whatsoever is infused into us is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired that is step by step by humane meanes and co-operation and grace does not give us new faculties and create another nature but meliorates and improves our own And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection is also true in this Question That is not first which is spirituall but that which is naturall and then that which is spirituall The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate and are additions to art and nature God directs our councels opens our understandings regulates our will orders our affections supplies us with Objects and Arguments and opportunities and revelations in scriptis and then most when we most imploy our own endeavours God loving to blesse all the meanes and instruments of his service whether they be naturall or acquisite But whosoever shall look for any other gifts of the spirit besides Numb 15. the parts of nature helped by industry and Gods blessing upon it and the revelations or the suppplyes of matter in holy Scripture will be very farre to seek having neither reason promise nor experience of his side For why should the spirit of Prayer be any other than as the gift and spirit of saith as S. Paul calls it 2 Cor. 4. 13 acquired by humane meanes using divine aids that is by our endeavours in hearing reading Catechizing desires to obey and all this blessed and promoted by God this produces faith And if the spirit of Prayer be of greater consequence and hath a promise of a speciall prerogative let the first be proved and the second be shewn in any good record and then I will believe it too 4. And the parallel of this Argument I the rather urge because Numb 16. I find praying in the holy Ghost joyned with graces which are as much Gods gifts and productions of the spirit as any thing in the world and yet which the Apostle presses upon us as duties and things put into our power and to be improved by our industry and those are faith in which I before instanced and charity Epist. Jud. ver 20. But ye beloved building up your selves on your most holy Faith praying in the holy Ghost keep your selves in the love of God All of the same consideration Faith and Prayer and Charity all gifts of the Spirit and yet build up your selves in faith and keep your selves in love and therefore by a parity of reason improve your selves in the spirit of prayer that is God by his Spirit having supplyed us with matter let our industry and co-operations per modum naturae improve these gifts and build upon this foundation So that in effect praying in the holy Ghost or with the Spirit Numb 17. is nothing but prayer for such things and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture Holy prayers spirituall songs so the Apostle calls one part of prayer viz. Eucharisticall or thanksgiving that is prayers or songs which are spirituall in materiâ And if they be called spirituall for the efficient cause too the holy Ghost being the Author of them it comes all to one for therefore he is the cause and giver of them because he hath in his word revealed what things we are to pray for and there also hath taught us the manner And this is exactly the Doctrine I plainly gather from the objected Numb 18. words of Saint Paul The spirit helpeth our infirmities How so it followes immediately For we know not what we should pray for as we ought So that therefore he is the Spirit of supplication and prayer because he teaches us what to ask and how to pray so he helps our infirmities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is in the Greek Collaborantem adjuvat It is an ingeminate expression of helping us in our labours together with him Now he that shall say this is not sufficiently done by Gods Spirit in Scripture by Prayers and Psalmes and Hymnes and Spirituall Songs and precepts concerning prayer set down in that holy repository of truth and devotion undervalues that inestimable treasure of the Spirit and if it be sufficiently done there he that will multiply his hopes farther then what is sufficient may possibly deceive himself but never deceive God and make him multiply and continue miracles to justifie his fancy 5. Better it is to follow the Scriptures for our guide as in all Numb 19. things else so in this particular Ephes. 6. 17 18. Take the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God Praying alwayes with all prayer and supplication in the spirit The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit praying in the Spirit is one way of using it indeed the only way that he here specifies Praying in the Spirit then being the using of this Sword and this Sword being the Word of God it followes evidently that praying in the Spirit is praying in or according to the Word of God that is in the directions rules and expresses of the Word of God that is of the holy Scriptures The summe is this Whatsoever this gift is or this spirit of Numb 20. Prayer it is to be acquired by humane industry by learning of the Scriptures by reading by conference and by whatsoever else faculties are improved and habits enlarged Gods Spirit hath done his work sufficiently this way and he loves not either in nature or grace which are his two great sanctions to multiply miracles when there is no need 6. So that now I demand Whether or no since the expiration Numb 21. of the Age of Miracles does not Gods Spirit most assist us when we most endeavour and most use the meanes He that sayes No discourages all men from reading the Scriptures from industry from meditation from conference from humane Arts and Sciences and from whatsoever else God and good Lawes provoke us to by proposition of rewards But if Yea as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours then the spirit of Prayer is greatest in him who supposing the like capacities and opportunities studies hardest reads most practices most religiously deliberates most prudently and then by how much want of meanes is worse then the use of meanes by so much ex tempore Prayers are worse then deliberate and studyed Excellent therefore is the councell of S. Peter 1 Ep. Chap. 4. ver 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God not lightly then and inconsiderately If any man minister let him doe it as of the ability which God giveth great reason
fancy and hath in it nothing of certainty or demonstration and not much probability For besides that the thing it selfe is unreasonable and the holy Ghost works by the heigthning and improving our naturall faculties and therefore is a promise that so concernes them as they are reasonable creatures and may have a title to it in proportion to their nature but no possession or reception of it till their faculties come into act besides this I say the words mentioned in S. Peter's Sermon which are the only record of the promise are interpreted upon a weak mistake The promise belongs to you and to your children therefore Infants are actually receptive of it in that capacity That 's the Argument but the reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will for to you and your children is to you and your posterity to you your children when they are of the same capacity in which you are effectually receptive of the promise But he that when ever the word children is used in Scripture shall by children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants and if that had been true it had beene the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims and beat the King of Moab and march so farre and discourse so well for they were all called the children of Israel And for the Allegation of S. Paul that Infants are holy if Numb 20. their Parents be faithfull it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation just as Jeremy and John Baptist were sanctified in their Mothers womb that is they were appointed and design'd for holy Ministeries but had not received the Promise of the Father the gift of the holy Ghost for all that sanctification and just so the Children of Christian Parents are sanctified that is design'd to the service of Jesus Christ and the future participation of the Promises And as the Promise appertaines not for ought appears to Numb 21. Infants in that capacity and consistence but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty so if it did yet Baptism is not the meanes of conveying the holy Ghost For that which Peter sayes be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost signifies no more then this First be baptized and then by imposition of the Apostles hands which was another mystery and rite ye shall receive the Promise of the Father And this is nothing but an insinuation of the rite of confirmation as is to this sense expounded by divers Ancient Authors and in ordinary ministry the effect of it is not bestowed upon any unbaptized persons for it is in order next after Baptism and upon this ground Peter's Argument in the case of Cornelius was concluding enough à majori ad minus Thus the holy Ghost was bestowed upon him and his Family which gift by ordinary ministery was consequent to Baptism not as the effect is to the cause or to the proper instrument but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chaine of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other God by that miracle did give testimony that the persons of the men were in great dispositions towards Heaven and therefore were to be admitted to those Rites which are the ordinary inlets into the Kingdome of Heaven But then from hence to argue that wherever there is a capacity of receiving the same grace there also the same sign is to be ministred and from hence to inferre Paedo-baptism is an Argument very fallacious upon severall grounds First because Baptism is not the sign of the holy Ghost but by another mystery it was conveyed ordinarily and extraordinarily it was conveyed independently from any mystery and so the Argument goes upon a wrong supposition Secondly if the supposition were true the proposition built upon it is false for they that are capable of the same grace are not alwayes capable of the same sign for women under the Law of Moses although they were capable of the righteousnesse of Faith yet they were not capable of the sign of Circumcision For God does not alwayes convey his graces in the same manner but to some mediately to others immediatly and there is no better instance in the world of it then the gift of the holy Ghost which is the thing now instanc'd in this contestation for it is certain in Scripture that it was ordinarily given by imposition of hands and that after Baptism And when this came into an ordinary ministery it was called by the Ancient Church Chrism or Confirmation but yet it was given sometimes without imposition of hands as at Pentecost and to the Family of Cornelius sometimes before Baptism sometimes after sometimes in conjunction with it And after all this least these Arguments should not ascertaine Numb 22. their Cause they fall on complaining against God and will not be content with God unlesse they may baptize their Children but take exceptions that God did more for the Children of the Jewes But why so Because God made a Covenant with their Children actually as Infants and consign'd it by Circumcision Well so he did with our children too in their proportion He made a Covenant of spirituall Promises on his part and spirituall and reall services on ours and this pertains to Children when they are capable but made with them as soon as they are alive and yet not so as with the Jewes Babes for as their rite consign'd them actually so it was a Nationall and temporall blessing and Covenant as a separation of them from the portion of the Nations a marking them for a peculiar people and therefore while they were in the Wildernesse and separate from the commixture of all people they were not at all circumcised but as that rite did seale the righteousnesse of Faith so by vertue of its adherency and remanency in their flesh it did that work when the Children came to age But in Christian Infants the case is otherwise for the new Covenant being establish'd upon better Promises is not only to better purposes but also in distinct manner to be understood when their spirits are as receptive of a spirituall act or impresse as the bodies of Jewish Children were of the sign of Circumcision then it is to be consign'd But this businesse is quickly at an end by saying that God hath done no lesse for ours then for their Children for hee will doe the mercies of a Father and Creator to them and he did no more to the other but he hath done more to ours for he hath made a Covenant with them and built it upon Promises of the greatest concernment he did not so to them But then for the other part which is the maine of the Argument that unlesse this mercy be consign'd by Baptism as good not at all in respect of us because we want the comfort of it this is
ends at the 118 inclusively And the Scripture mentions it as part of our blessed Saviours devotion and of his Disciples that they sung a Psalme 15. That this afterward became a Precept Evangelicall that we should praise God in Hymnes Psalmes and spirituall Songs which is a form of Liturgy in which we sing with the spirit but yet cannot make our Hymnes ex tempore it would be wild stuffe if we should goe about it 16. And lastly that a set form of worship and addresse to God was recorded by Saint John and sung in heaven and it was Apoc. 15. composed out of the songs of Moses Exod. 15. of David Psal. 145. and of Jeremy Chap. 10. 6 7. which certainly is a very good precedent for us to imitate although but revealed to Saint John by way of vision and extasie All which and many more are to me as so many Arguments of the use excellency and necessity of set forms of Prayer for publick Liturgies and of greatest conveniencie even for private devotions 17. And so the Church of God in all Ages did understand it Numb 39. I shall not multiply Authorities to this purpose for they are too many and various but shall only observe two great instances of their beliefe and practise in this particular 1. The one is the perpetuall use and great Eulogies of the Lords Prayer assisted by the many Commentaries of the Fathers upon it 2. The other is that solemn form of benediction and mysticall prayer as Saint Augustine calls it Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 4. which all Churches and themselves said it was by Ordinance Apostolicall used in the Consecration of the blessed Sacrament But all of them used the Lords Prayer in the Canon and office of Consecration and other prayers taken from Scripture so Justin Martyr testifies that the Consecration is made per preces verbi Dei by the prayers taken from the Word of God and the whole Canon was short determined and mysterious Who desires to be further satisfied in this particular shall Numb 40. find enough in Walafridus Strabo Aymonius Cassander Elacius Illyrious Josephus Vicecomes and the other Ritualists and the other Ritualists and in the old offices themselves So that I need not put you in mind of that famous doxology of Gloria Patria c. nor the Trisagion nor any of those memorable hymnes used in the Ancient Church so knownly and frequently that the beginning of them came to bee their name and they were known more by their own words then the Authors inscription At last when some men that thought themselves better gifted Numb 41. would be venturing at conceived formes of their own there was a timely restraint made in the Councell of Milevis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our Superiours and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason followes Ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum Lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners The reason is good and they are eare-witnesses of it that hear the variety of prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personall concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two dayes before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the meane time pretend to the holy Spirit I will not now instance in the vaine-glory that is appendant Numb 42. to these ex tempore formes of prayer where the gift of the man is more then the devotion of the man nor will I consider that then his gift is best when his prayer is longest and if he take a complacency in his gift as who is not apt to doe it he will be sure to extend his Prayer till a suspicious and scrupulous man would be apt to say his prayer pressed hard upon that which our blessed Saviour reprehended in the Pharisees who thought to bee heard for their much babling But these things are accidentall to the nature of the thing And therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person yet I will not be too severe but preserve my selfe on the surer side of charitable construction which truly I desire to keep nor only to their persons whom I much reverence but also to their actions But yet I durst not doe the same thing even for these last reasons though I had no other But it is objected that in set forms of Prayer we restrain and Numb 43. confine the blessed Spirit and in conceived forms when every man is left to his liberty then the Spirit is free unlimited and unconstrained I answer either their conceived formes I use their own words Numb 44. though indeed the expression is very inartificiall are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore If they be premeditate and described then the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived forms For as to this particular it is all one who describes and limits the form whether the Church or a single man does it still the Spirit is in constraint and limit So that in this case they are not angry at set forms of Prayer but that they do not make them And if it be replyed that if a single person composes a set form he may alter it if he please and so his spirit is at liberty I answer so may the Church if she see cause for it and unlesse there be cause the single person will not alter it unlesse he do things unreasonable and without cause So that it will be an unequall and a peevish quarrell to allow of set forms of prayer made by private persons and not of set forms made by the publick spirit of the Church It is evident that the Spirit is limited in both alike But if by Conceived forms in this objection they meane Numb 45. ex tempore prayers for so they most generally practice it and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved To this I answer that the being ex tempore or premeditate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit For there may be great liberty in set forms even when there is much variety and there may be great restraint in ex tempore prayers even then when it shall be called unlawfull to use set forms That the spirit is restrained or that it is free in either is accidentall to them both for it may be either free
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
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