LXXVII. The ministry of things divine is a function which as God did himself institute, so neither may men undertake the same but by authority and power given them in lawful manner. That God which is no way deficient or wanting unto man in necessaries, and hath therefore given us the light of his heavenly truth, because without that inestimable benefit we must needs have wandered in darkness to our endless perdition and woe, hath in the like abundance of mercies ordained certain to attend upon the due execution of requisite parts and offices therein prescribed for the good of the whole world, which men thereunto assigned do hold their authority from him, whether they be such as himself immediately or as the Church in his name investeth, it being neither possible for all nor for every man without distinction convenient to take upon him a charge of so great importance. They are therefore ministers of God, not only by way of subordination as princes and civil magistrates whose execution of judgment and justice the supreme hand of divine providence doth uphold, but ministers of God as from whom their authority is derived, and not from men. For in that they are Christ’s ambassadors and his labourers, who should give them their commission but he whose most inward affairs they manage? Is not God alone the Father of spirits? Are not souls the purchase of Jesus Christ? What angel in Heaven could have said to man as our Lord did unto Peter, “Feed my sheep: Preach: Baptize: Do this in remembrance of me: Whose sins ye retain they are retained: and their offences in heaven pardoned whose faults you shall on earth forgive?” What think we? Are these terrestrial sounds, or else are they voices uttered out of the clouds above? The power of the ministry of God translateth out of darkness into glory, it raiseth men from the earth and bringeth God himself down from heaven, by blessing visible elements it maketh them invisible grace, it giveth daily the Holy Ghost, it hath to dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world and that blood which was poured out to redeem souls, when it poureth malediction upon the heads of the wicked they perish, when it revoketh the same they revive. O wretched blindness if we admire not so great power, more wretched if we consider it aright and notwithstanding imagine that any but God can bestow it!
To whom Christ hath imparted power both over that mystical body which is the society of souls, and over that natural which is himself for the knitting of both in one; (a work which antiquity doth call1 the making of Christ’s body;) the same power is in such not amiss both termed a kind of mark or character and acknowledged to be indelible. Ministerial power is a mark of separation, because it severeth them that have it from other men, and maketh them a special order consecrated unto the service of the Most High in things wherewith others may not meddle. Their difference therefore from other men is in that they are a distinct order. So Tertullian calleth them2. And St. Paul himself dividing the body of the Church of Christ into two moieties nameth the one part ἰδιώτας3, which is as much as to say the Order of the Laity, the opposite part whereunto we in like sort term the Order of God’s Clergy, and the spiritual power which he hath given them the power of their Order, so far forth as the same consisteth in the bare execution of holy things called properly the affairs of God4. For of the power of their jurisdiction over men’s persons we are to speak in the books following.
They which have once received this power may not think to put it off and on like a cloak as the weather serveth, to take it, reject and resume it as oft as themselves list, of which profane and impious contempt these later times have yielded as of all other kinds of iniquity and apostasy strange examples; but let them know which put their hands unto this plough, that once consecrated unto God they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever. Suspensions may stop, and degradations utterly cut off the use or exercise of power before given: but voluntarily it is not in the power of man to separate and pull asunder what God by his authority coupleth. So that although there may be through misdesert degradation, as there may be cause of just separation after matrimony5, yet if (as sometime it doth) restitution to former dignity or reconciliation after breach do happen, neither doth the one nor the other ever iterate the first knot.
Much less is it necessary which some have urged, concerning the reordination of such as others in times more corrupt did consecrate heretofore6. Which error already quelled by St. Jerome7 doth not now require any other refutation.
Examples I grant there are which make for restraint of those men from admittance again into rooms of spiritual function, whose fall by heresy or want of constancy in professing the Christian faith hath been once a disgrace to their calling8. Nevertheless as there is no law which bindeth, so there is no cause that should always lead, to show one and the same severity towards persons culpable. Goodness of nature itself more inclineth to clemency than rigour. And we in other men’s offences do behold the plain image of our own imbecility. Besides also, them that wander out of the way9 it cannot be unexpedient to win with all hopes of favour, lest strictness used towards such as reclaim themselves should make others more obstinate in error. Wherefore after that the church of Alexandria had somewhat recovered itself from the tempests and storms of Arianism10, being in consultation about the reestablishment of that which by long disturbance had been greatly decayed and hindered, the ferventer sort11 gave quick sentence that touching them which were of the clergy and had stained themselves with heresy there should be none so received into the Church again as to continue in the order of the clergy. The rest which considered how many men’s cases it did concern thought it much more safe and consonant to bend somewhat down towards them which were fallen, to show severity upon a few of the chiefest leaders, and to offer to the rest a friendly reconciliation without any other demand saving only the abjuration of their error12; as in the gospel that wasteful young man which returned home to his father’s house was with joy both admitted and honoured, his elder brother hardly thought of for repining thereat, neither commended so much for his own fidelity and virtue as blamed for not embracing him freely whose unexpected recovery ought to have blotted out all remembrance of misdemeanours and faults past. But of this sufficient.
A thing much stumbled at in the manner of giving orders is our using those memorable words of our Lord and Saviour Christ, “Receive the Holy Ghost.” The13 Holy Ghost they say we cannot give, and therefore we “foolishly” bid men receive it. Wise men for their authority’s sake must have leave to befool them whom they are able to make wise by better instruction. Notwithstanding if it may please their wisdom as well to hear what fools can say as to control that which they do, thus we have heard some wise men teach, namely that the “Holy Ghost” may be used to signify not the Person alone but the gifts of the Holy Ghost14, and we know that spiritual gifts are not only abilities to do things miraculous, as to speak with tongues which were never taught us, to cure diseases without art, and such like, but also that the very authority and power which is given men in the Church to be ministers of holy things, this is contained within the number of those gifts whereof the Holy Ghost is author; and therefore he which giveth this power may say without absurdity or folly “Receive the Holy Ghost,” such power as the Spirit of Christ hath endued his Church withal, such power as neither prince nor potentate, king nor Cæsar on earth can give. So that if men alone had devised this form of speech thereby to express the heavenly wellspring of that power which ecclesiastical ordinations do bestow, it is not so foolish but that wise men might bear with it.
If then our Lord and Saviour himself have used the selfsame form of words and that in the selfsame kind of action, although there be but the least shew of probability, yea or any possibility that his meaning might be the same which ours is, it should teach sober and grave men not to be too venturous in condemning that of folly which is not impossible to have in it more profoundness of wisdom than flesh and blood should presume to control. Our Saviour after his resurrection from the dead gave his Apostles their commission saying15, “All power is given me in Heaven and in earth: Go therefore and teach all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” In sum, “As my Father sent me, so send I you.” Whereunto St. John doth add farther that “having thus spoken he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Ghost16.” By which words he must of likelihood understand some gift of the Spirit which was presently at that time bestowed upon them, as both the speech of actual delivery in saying Receive, and the visible sign thereof his breathing did show. Absurd it were to imagine our Saviour did both to the ear and also to the very eye express a real donation, and they at that time receive nothing.
It resteth then that we search what especial grace they did at that time receive. Touching miraculous power of the Spirit, most apparent it is that as then they received it not, but the promise thereof was to be shortly after performed. The words of St. Luke concerning that power are therefore set down with signification of the time to come17: “Behold I will send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry you in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.” Wherefore undoubtedly it was some other effect of the Spirit, the Holy Ghost in some other kind which our Saviour did then bestow. What other likelier than that which himself doth mention as it should seem of purpose to take away all ambiguous constructions, and to declare that the Holy Ghost which he then gave was an holy and a ghostly authority, authority over the souls of men, authority a part whereof consisteth in power to remit and retain sins18? “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted; whose sins ye retain they are retained.” Whereas therefore the other Evangelists had set down that Christ did before his suffering promise to give his Apostles the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and being risen from the dead promise moreover at that time a miraculous power of the Holy Ghost, St. John addeth that he also invested them even then with the power of the Holy Ghost for castigation and relaxation of sin, wherein was fully accomplished that which the promise of the keys did import.
Seeing therefore that the same power is now given, why should the same form of words expressing it be thought foolish? The cause why we breathe not19 as Christ did on them unto whom he imparted power is for that neither Spirit nor spiritual authority may be thought to proceed from us, which are but delegates or assigns to give men possession of his graces.
Now, besides that the power and authority delivered with those words is itself χάρισμα, a gracious donation which the Spirit of God doth bestow, we may most assuredly persuade ourselves that the hand which imposeth upon us the function of our ministry doth under the same form of words so tie itself thereunto, that he which receiveth the burden is thereby for ever warranted to have the Spirit with him and in him for his assistance20, aid, countenance and support in whatsoever he faithfully doth to discharge duty. Knowing therefore that when we take ordination we also receive the presence of the Holy Ghost, partly to guide, direct and strengthen us in all our ways, and partly to assume unto itself for the more authority those actions that appertain to our place and calling, can our ears admit such a speech uttered in the reverend performance of that solemnity, or can we at any time renew the memory and enter into serious cogitation thereof, but with much admiration and joy? Remove what these foolish words do imply, and what hath the ministry of God besides wherein to glory? Whereas now, forasmuch as the Holy Ghost which our Saviour in his first ordinations gave doth no less concur with spiritual vocations throughout all ages, than the Spirit which God derived from Moses to them that assisted him in his government21 did descend from them to their successors in like authority and place, we have for the least and meanest duties performed by virtue of ministerial power, that to dignify, grace and authorize them, which no other offices on earth can challenge. Whether we preach, pray, baptize, communicate, condemn, give absolution, or whatsoever, as disposers of God’s mysteries, our words, judgments, acts and deeds, are not ours but the Holy Ghost’s. Enough, if unfeignedly and in heart we did believe it, enough to banish whatsoever may justly be thought corrupt, either in bestowing, or in using, or in esteeming the same otherwise than is meet. For profanely to bestow, or loosely to use, or vilely to esteem of the Holy Ghost we all in shew and profession abhor.
Now because the ministry is an office of dignity and honour, some22 are doubtful whether any man may seek for it without offence, or to speak more properly doubtful they are not, but rather bold to accuse our discipline in this respect, as not only permitting but requiring also ambitious suits and other oblique ways or means whereby to obtain it. Against this they plead that our Saviour did stay till his Father sent him, and the Apostles till he them; that the ancient Bishops in the Church of Christ were examples and patterns of the same modesty. Whereupon in the end they infer, “Let us therefore at the length amend that custom of repairing from all parts unto the bishop at the day of ordination, and of seeking to obtain orders; let the custom of bringing commendatory letters be removed; let men keep themselves at home, expecting there the voice of God and the authority of such as may call them to undertake charge23.”
Thus severely they censure and control ambition, if it be ambition which they take upon them to reprehend. For of that there is cause to doubt. Ambition as we understand it hath been accounted a vice which seeketh after honours inordinately. Ambitious minds esteeming it their greatest happiness to be admired, reverenced, and adored above others, use all means lawful and unlawful which may bring them to high rooms. But as for the power of order considered by itself and as in this case it must be considered, such reputation it hath in the eye of this present world, that they which affect it rather need encouragement to bear contempt than deserve blame as men that carry aspiring minds. The work whereunto this power serveth is commended, and the desire thereof allowed by the Apostle for good24. Nevertheless because the burden thereof is heavy and the charge great, it cometh many times to pass that the minds even of virtuous men are drawn into clean contrary affections, some in humility declining that by reason of hardness which others in regard of goodness only do with fervent alacrity covet. So that there is not the least degree in this service but it may be both in reverence shunned25, and of very devotion longed for.
If, then, the desire thereof may be holy religious and good, may not the profession of that desire be so likewise? We are not to think it so long good as it is dissembled and evil if once we begin to open it.
And allowing that it may be opened without ambition, what offence I beseech you is there in opening it there where it may be furthered and satisfied in case they to whom it appertaineth think meet? In vain are those desires allowed the accomplishment whereof it is not lawful for men to seek.
Power therefore of ecclesiastical order may be desired, the desire thereof may be professed, they which profess themselves that way inclined may endeavour to bring their desires to effect, and in all this no necessity of evil. Is it the bringing of testimonial letters wherein so great obliquity consisteth? What more simple, more plain, more harmless, more agreeable with the law of common humanity than that men where they are not known use for their easier access the credit of such as can best give testimony of them? Letters of any other construction our church discipline alloweth not, and these to allow is neither to require ambitious suings nor to approve any indirect or unlawful act.
The prophet Esay receiving his message at the hands of God and his charge by heavenly vision heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send; who shall go for us26?” Whereunto he recordeth his own answer, “Then I said, Here Lord I am, send me.” Which in effect is the rule and canon whereby touching this point the very order of the church is framed. The appointment of times for solemn ordination is but the public demand of the Church in the name of the Lord himself, “Whom shall I send, who shall go for us?” The confluence of men whose inclinations are bent that way is but the answer thereunto, whereby the labours of sundry being offered, the Church hath freedom to take whom her agents in such case think meet and requisite.
As for the example of our Saviour Christ who took not to himself this honour to be made our high priest, but received the same from him which said, “Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec27,” his waiting and not attempting to execute the office till God saw convenient time may serve in reproof of usurped honours, forasmuch as we ought not of our own accord to assume dignities, whereunto we are not called as Christ was. But yet it should be withal considered that a proud usurpation without any orderly calling is one thing, and another the bare declaration of willingness to obtain admittance, which willingness of mind I suppose did not want in him whose answer was to the voice of his heavenly calling, “Behold I am come to do thy will28.” And had it been for him as it is for us expedient to receive his commission signed with the hands of men, to seek it might better have beseemed his humility than it doth our boldness to reprehend them of pride and ambition that make no worse kind of suits than by letters of information.
Himself in calling his Apostles prevented all cogitations of theirs that way, to the end it might truly be said of them, “Ye chose not me, but I of my own voluntary motion made choice of you29.” Which kind of undesired nomination to ecclesiastical places befell divers of the most famous amongst the ancient Fathers of the Church in a clean contrary consideration. For our Saviour’s election respected not any merit or worth, but took them which were farthest off from likelihood of fitness, that afterwards their supernatural ability and performance beyond hope might cause the greater admiration; whereas in the other, mere admiration of their singular and rare virtues was the reason why honours were enforced upon them, which they of meekness and modesty did what they could to avoid. But did they ever judge it a thing unlawful to wish or desire the office, the only charge and bare function of the ministry? Towards which labour what doth the blessed Apostle else but encourage saying, “He which desireth it is desirous of a good work30?” What doth he else by such sentences but stir, kindle, and inflame ambition, if I may term that desire ambition, which coveteth more to testify love by painfulness in God’s service, than to reap any other benefit?
Although of the very honour itself, and of other emoluments annexed to such labours, for more encouragement of man’s industry, we are not so to conceive neither, as if no affection could be cast towards them without offence. Only as the wise man giveth counsel31, “Seek not to be made a judge, lest thou be not able to take away iniquity, and lest thou fearing the person of the mighty shouldest commit an offence against thine uprightness;” so it always behoveth men to take good heed, lest affection to that which hath in it as well difficulty as goodness sophisticate the true and sincere judgment which beforehand they ought to have of their own ability, for want whereof many forward minds have found instead of contentment repentance. But forasmuch as hardness of things in themselves most excellent cooleth the fervency of men’s desires, unless there be somewhat naturally acceptable to incite labour, (for both the method of speculative knowledge doth by things which we sensibly perceive conduct to that which is in nature more certain though less sensible, and the method of virtuous actions is also to train beginners at the first by things acceptable unto the taste of natural appetite, till our minds at the length be settled to embrace things precious in the eye of reason, merely and wholly for their own sakes,) howsoever inordinate desires do hereby take occasion to abuse the polity of God and nature, either affecting without worth, or procuring by unseemly means, that which was instituted and should be reserved for better minds to obtain by more approved courses; in which consideration the emperors Anthemius and Leo did worthily oppose against such ambitious practices that ancient famous constitution32 wherein they have these sentences: “Let not a prelate be ordained for reward or upon request, who should be so far sequestered from all ambition that they which advance him might be fain to search where he hideth himself, to entreat him drawing back, and to follow him till importunity have made him yield; let nothing promote him but his excuses to avoid the burden; they are unworthy of that vocation which are not thereunto brought unwillingly:” notwithstanding we ought not therefore with the odious name of ambition to traduce and draw into hatred every poor request or suit wherein men may seem to affect honour; seeing that ambition and modesty do not always so much differ in the mark they shoot at as in the manner of their prosecutions.
Yea even in this may be error also, if we still imagine them least ambitious which most forbear to stir either hand or foot towards their own preferments. For there are that make an idol of their great sufficiency, and because they surmise the place should be happy that might enjoy them, they walk every where like grave pageants observing whether men do not wonder why so small account is made of so rare worthiness, and in case any other man’s advancement be mentioned they either smile or blush at the marvellous folly of the world which seeth not where dignities should offer themselves.
Seeing therefore that suits after spiritual functions may be as ambitiously forborne as prosecuted, it remaineth that the evenest line of moderation between both is33 neither to follow them without conscience, nor of pride to withdraw ourselves utterly from them.
← Of the nature of that Ministry which serveth · Contents · Of Degrees, whereby the power of order is di →
Footnotes
-
[E. g. S. Jerome, Ep. xiv. § 8. t. i. 33; and Ep. cxlvi. § 1. p. 1075. ed. Vallarsii. Hooker seems to have approved of the view of Remigius of Auxerre (ninth century), for which see Bibl. Patr. Colon. v. pars iii. 884; and comp. Waterland, Works, viii. 250.] ↩
-
Tertul. de Adhort. Castit. [c. 7. “Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit Ecclesiæ auctoritas, et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus a Deo.”] ↩
-
[1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24. Ὁ ἀναπληρω̑ν τὸν τόπον του̑ ἰδιώτου. S. Chrys. in loc. ἰδιώτην, τὸν λαϊκὸν λέγει.] ↩
-
Heb. ii. 17. [τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.] ↩
-
Matt. xix. [4-9.] ↩
-
[Eccl. Disc. fol. 16. “Papisticos sacerdotes eos dico qui nulla unquam nova ordinatione ad legitimum ministerium delecti sunt, sed tantum horrendis illis sacris freti, &c.” See also fol. 80-82.] ↩
-
[In his Dialogue against the Luciferians.] ↩
-
[Can. Apost. 62. al. 61, or 54. Εἴ τις κληρικὸς διὰ ϕόβον ἀνθρώπινον, Ἰουδαίου, ἢ Ἕλληνος, ἢ αἱρετικου̑, ἀρνήσηται, εἰ μὲν τὸ ὄνομα του̑ Χριστου̑, ἀϕοριζέσθω· εἰ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα του̑ κληρικου̑, καθαιρείσθω· μετανοήσας δὲ ὡς λαϊκὸς δεχθήτω. ap. Coteler. PP. Apost. i. 450. S. Petr. Alex. Can. 10. ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. 333. Οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀπὸ κλήρου αὐτομολήσαντας ἐκπεπτωκότας τε καὶ ἀναπαλαίσαντας ἔτι ἐν τῃ̑ λειτουργίᾳ εἰ̑ναι. S. Cypr. Ep. 55. t. ii. p. 105. “Redeunte ad Ecclesiam Trophimo, et satisfaciente, et pœnitentia deprecationis errorem pristinum confitente, et fraternitatem, quam nuper abstraxerat, cum plena humilitate et satisfactione revocante, auditæ sunt ejus preces … Sic tamen admissus est Trophimus, ut laicus communicet, non secundum quod ad te malignorum literæ pertulerunt, quasi locum sacerdotis usurpet.”] ↩
-
“In XII. Tabulis cautum est, ut idem juris esset sanatibus quod fortibus, id est bonis et qui nunquam defecerunt a populo Romano.” Fest. in ver. Samnites. [“Sanates dicti sunt, qui supra infraque Romam habitaverunt, quia cum defecissent a Romanis, brevi post redierunt in amicitiam, quasi sanata mente.” Festus, (or rather Paulus Diaconus, his epitomizer,) ubi sup.] [Cf. Wordsworth, Fragments of Early Latin, (Oxford, 1874) p. 515.] 1887. ↩
-
Ruffin. Hist. Eccles. lib. x. cap. 28. [“Quo pacto post hæreticorum procellas et perfidiæ turbines tranquillitas revocaretur Ecclesiæ, omni cura et libratione discutiunt. Aliis videbatur fidei calore ferventibus, nullum debere ultra in sacerdotium recipi, qui se utcunque hæreticæ communionis contagione maculasset. Sed qui imitantes Apostolum quærebant non quod sibi utile esset sed quod pluribus, … dicebant melius esse humiliari paululum propter dejectos, . . et ideo rectum sibi videri, ut tantum perfidiæ auctoribus amputatis, reliquis sacerdotibus daretur optio, si forte velint, abjurato errore perfidiæ, ad fidem patrum statutaque converti, … quia et ille evangelicus junior filius, paternæ depopulator substantiæ, in semet ipsum reversus, non solum suscipi meruit, sed et dignus paternis complexibus deputatur, et annulum fidei recipit, et stola circumdatur: per quam quid aliud quam sacerdotii declarantur insignia? Nec probabilis extitit apud patrem senior filius, quod invidit recepto; nec tantum meriti habuit non delinquendo, quantum notæ contraxit non indulgendo germano.”] ↩
-
[That is, the Luciferians. See St. Jerome’s Dialogue against them: and the account of the origin of their schism in Socr. iii. 5, 6, 9; Sozom. v. 12, 23; Theodoret. iii. 4, 5.] ↩
-
[See the proceedings of the council of Alexandria, assembled on the return of St. Athanasius, ad 362: the synodical letter of that council drawn up by Athanasius, in his works, t. i. p. 770: and Newman on the Arians of the 4th Century, c. v. § 1.] ↩
-
“Papisticus quidam ritus stulte quidem ab illis et sine ullo Scripturæ fundamento institutus, et a disciplinæ nostræ auctoribus (pace illorum dixerim) non magno primum judicio acceptus, minore adhuc in Ecclesia nostra retinetur.” Ecclesiast. Discip. p. 53. [69 of Cartwright’s Translation. See also Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 227. “That ridiculous, and (as they use it to their new creatures) blasphemous saying, ‘Receive &c.’ ” Answ. ibid. “No more ridiculous and blasphemous, than it is to use the words that our Saviour used in the Supper … . The Bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more than he doth to remit sins, when he pronounceth the remission of sins… . He doth shew the principal duty of a minister, and assureth him of the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, if he labour in the same accordingly.” T. C. i. 44. “These words, ‘Receive,’ &c. are the imperative mood, and do expressly signify a commandment. And, the Bishop may as well say to the sea, when it rageth and swelleth, Peace, be quiet; as to say, ‘Receive, &c.’ ” Whitg. Def. ibid. “The words … because they signify that God doth pour His Spirit upon those whom he calleth to that function, are most aptly used of the Bishop (who is God’s instrument in that business) in the ordaining of ministers. St. Paul speaking to Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. saith, ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee of prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.’ In which words the Apostle signifieth that God doth bestow his gifts and Spirit upon such as be called to the ministry of the word, whereof imposition of hands is a token, or rather a confirmation.” T. C. ii. 292. “The place of Timothy is utterly impertinent. For it is not question whether God doth give his gifts to them which he calleth, or no; but whether he giveth them by this means, of saying, ‘Receive, &c.’ ”] ↩
-
Eccles. Discip. fol. 52. p. 2. lin. 8. [“Spiritum Sanctum, i. e. varia atque multiplicia illa dona Spiritus” … . And p. 68 of Cartwright’s Transl. “As for Barnabas, S. Luke doth plainly witness that he was full of the Holy Ghost (whereby I understand the extraordinary gifts) and of faith.”] ↩
-
Matt. xxviii. 18. ↩
-
John xx. 22. ↩
-
Luke xxiv. 49. ↩
-
John xx. 23. ↩
-
[T. C. i. 44. al. 63. “If you think it so good reason to use this in the making of ministers, because you use the words of our Saviour Christ, why may you not as well blow upon them as he did… You are much to blame to leave out the outward sign or sacrament of breath.” Whitg. Def. 228. “Christ when he breathed upon them did an action proper unto himself, for he thereby signified that he had authority to give unto them his Holy Spirit, and that the same Spirit did not only proceed from the Father but from himself also: when he spake these words, he made a perpetual promise that all such should receive his Spirit, as from time to time were by him called to the office of the ministry.” T. C. ii. 293. “If because he instituted a ministry by those words they are to be used, then the breathing must likewise, considering that he used that for the confirmation of the words.”] ↩
-
“Etsi necessarium est trepidare de merito, religiosum est tamen gaudere de dono: quoniam qui mihi oneris est auctor ipse fiet administrationis adjutor, et ne magnitudine gratiæ succumbat infirmus, dabit virtutem qui contulit dignitatem.” Leo ser. 1. in anniver. die Assumpt. Τὸ Πνευ̑μα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἡμα̑ς εἰς τὴν διακονίαν ταύτην. Greg. Nazian. [Orat. 5. ad fin.] ↩
-
Numb. xi. 17. ↩
-
Auct. Libel. de Discip. Ecclesiast. [fol. 25-27, or p. 35, of Cartwright’s Translation.] ↩
-
Eccl. Disc. fol. 25. “Neque vero hic quisquam dona et suam dignitatem ostentet; quibus fretus tanquam candidatus honores ambiat… Neque vero hic illud Apostoli nobis opponant, eum qui episcopatum desiderat rem præclaram appetere, ut candidatoriæ petitionis ambitionem confirment… . . Christum … delituisse legimus, et Patris sui vocem expectasse… . . Similiter faciunt Apostoli… . . Eadem modestia in veteris Ecclesiæ Episcopis apparet… . Corrigamus aliquando morem illum ad diem ordinationum Episcopi ex omnibus partibus confluendi, ordinationem et ordines (trito Papistis vocabulo fere appellant) petendi atque ambiendi, commendatitias amicorum aut dominorum literas afferendi, omnem denique corrumpendæ vocationis rationem quærendi; ac tandem (quod jam diu factum oportuit) ex Dei verbo statuamus, ne quis amplius ullam in Ecclesia Dei vocationem ambiat, domi omnes sese contineant, operam suam modestius offerant, illic Dei vocem et eligentium auctoritatem ad Ecclesiam capessendam expectent.”] ↩
-
1 Tim. iii. 1. ↩
-
Τω̑ν παλαιω̑ν τοὺς εὐδοκιμωτάτους ἀνασκοπω̑ν εὑρίσκω, ὅσους πώποτε εἰς ἐπιστασίαν ἢ προϕητείαν ἡ χάρις προὐβάλετο, τοὺς μὲν εἴξαντας προθύμως τῃ̑ κλήσει τοὺς δὲ ἀναβαλλομένους τὸ χάρισμα, καὶ οὐδετέρων μεμπτὴν οὔτε τω̑ν ὑποχωρησάντων τὴν δειλίαν οὔτε τω̑ν ὁρμησάντων τὴν προθυμίαν, οἱ μὲν γὰρ τη̑ς διακονίας τὸ μέγεθος ηὐλαβήθησαν, οἱ δὲ τῳ̑ καλου̑ντι πιστεύσαντες ἠκολούθησαν. Greg. Nazian. Apologet. [p. 64.] ↩
-
Isaiah vi. 8. ↩
-
Heb. v. 6. ↩
-
Heb. x. 9. ↩
-
[S. John xv. 16.] ↩
-
[1 Tim. iii. 1.] ↩
-
Ecclus. vii. 6. ↩
-
[Cod. Justin. i. tit. iii. de Episcop. et Cler. l. 31. ad 469. “Nec pretio, sed precibus, ordinetur Antistes. Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus, ut quæratur cogendus, rogatus recedat, invitatus effugiat, sola illi suffragetur necessitas excusandi. Profecto enim indignus est sacerdotio, nisi fuerit ordinatus invitus.” Accursius’ note however on the present reading is, “Sic omnes MSS. recte: i. e. ‘orandus est Deus ut det optimum;’ vel ut alii exponunt, ‘orandus est is qui refugit hoc onus.’ Alii legunt ‘nec precibus.’ ”] ↩
-
Μέσος εἰμί τις τω̑ν τε ἄγαν τολμηρω̑ν καὶ τω̑ν λίαν δειλω̑ν, τω̑ν μὲν πάσαις ἐπιπηδώντων προστασίαις δειλότερος, τω̑ν δὲ ϕευγόντων πάσας θαρσαλεώτερος. Greg. Nazian. Apologet. [p. 43.] ↩