XIV. The next thing which they upbraid us with, is the difference between that inequality of pastors which hath been of old, and which now is. For at length they grant, that “the superiority of bishops and of archbishops is somewhat ancient, but no such kind of superiority as ours have.” By the laws of our discipline a bishop may ordain without asking the people’s consent, a bishop may excommunicate and release alone, a bishop may imprison, a bishop may bear civil office in the realm, a bishop may be a counsellor of state; these things ancient bishops neither did nor might do. Be it granted that ordinarily neither in elections nor deprivations, neither in excommunicating nor in releasing the excommunicate, in none of the weighty affairs of government, bishops of old were wont to do any thing without consultation with their clergy and consent of the people under them. Be it granted that the same bishops did neither touch any man with corporal punishment, nor meddle with secular affairs and offices, the whole clergy of God being then tied by the strict and severe canons of the Church to use no other than ghostly power, to attend no other business than heavenly. Tarquinius was in the Roman commonwealth deservedly hated, of whose unorderly proceedings the history1 speaketh thus: “Hic regum primus traditum a prioribus morem de omnibus senatum consulendi solvit; domesticis consiliis rempub. administravit; bellum, pacem, fœdera, societates, per seipsum, cum quibus voluit, injussu populi ac senatus, fecit diremitque.” Against bishops the like is objected, “That they are invaders of other men’s rights, and by intolerable usurpation take upon them to do that alone, wherein ancient laws have appointed that others, not they only, should bear sway.”
Let the case of bishops be put, not in such sort as it is, but even as their very heaviest adversaries would devise it. Suppose that bishops at the first had encroached upon the Church; that by sleights and cunning practices they had appropriated ecclesiastical, as Augustus did imperial power; that they had taken the advantage of men’s inclinable affections, which did not suffer them for revenue’s2 sake to be suspected of ambition; that in the meanwhile their usurpation had gone forward by certain easy and unsensible degrees; that being not discerned in the growth, when it was thus far grown as we now see it hath proceeded, the world at length perceiving there was just cause of complaint, but no place of remedy left, had assented unto it by a general secret agreement to bear it now as a helpless evil; all this supposed for certain and true, yet surely a thing of this nature, as for the superior to do that alone unto which of right the consent of some other inferiors should have been required by them; though it had an indirect entrance at the first, must needs, through continuance of so many ages as this hath stood, be made now a thing more natural to the Church, than that it should be oppressed with the mention of contrary orders worn so many ages since quite and clean out of ure.
But with bishops the case is otherwise; for in doing that by themselves which others together with them have been accustomed to do, they do not any thing but that whereunto they have been upon just occasions authorized by orderly means. All things natural have in them naturally more or less the power of providing for their own safety: and as each particular man hath this power, so every politic society of men must needs have the same, that thereby the whole may provide for the good of all parts therein. For other benefit we have not any by sorting ourselves into politic societies, saving only that by this mean each part hath that relief which the virtue of the whole is able to yield it. The Church therefore being a politic society or body, cannot possibly want the power of providing for itself; and the chiefest part of that power consisteth in the authority of making laws. Now forasmuch as corporations are perpetual, the laws of the ancienter Church cannot choose but bind the latter, while they are in force. But we must note withal, that because the body of the Church continueth the same, it hath the same authority still, and may abrogate old laws, or make new, as need shall require. Wherefore vainly are the ancient canons and constitutions objected as laws, when once they are either let secretly to die by disusage, or are openly abrogated by contrary laws.
The ancient3 had cause to do no otherwise than they did; and yet so strictly they judged not themselves in conscience bound to observe those orders, but that in sundry cases they easily dispensed therewith, which I suppose they would never have done, had they esteemed them as things whereunto everlasting, immutable, and undispensable observation did belong. The bishop usually promoted none which were not first allowed as fit, by conference had with the rest of his clergy and with the people: notwithstanding, in the case of Aurelius4, St. Cyprian did otherwise. In matters of deliberation and counsel, for disposing of that which belongeth generally to the whole body of the Church, or which being more particular, is nevertheless of so great consequence, that it needeth the force of many judgments conferred; in such things the common saying must necessarily take place, “An eye cannot see that which eyes can5.” As for clerical ordinations, there are no such reasons alleged against the order which is, but that it may be esteemed as good in every respect as that which hath been; and in some considerations better; at leastwise (which is sufficient to our purpose) it may be held in the Church of Christ without transgressing any law, either ancient or late, divine or human, which we ought to observe and keep.
The form of making ecclesiastical officers hath sundry parts, neither are they all of equal moment.
When Deacons having not been before in the Church of Christ, the Apostles saw it needful to have such ordained, they first, assemble the multitude, and shew them how needful it is that deacons be made: secondly, they name unto them what number they judge convenient, what quality the men must be of, and to the people they commit the care of finding such out: thirdly, the people hereunto assenting, make their choice of Stephen and the rest; those chosen men they bring and present before the Apostles: howbeit, all this doth not endue them with any ecclesiastical power. But when so much was done, the Apostles finding no cause to take exception, did with prayer and imposition of hands make them deacons. This was it which gave them their very being; all other things besides were only preparations unto this.
Touching the form of making Presbyters, although it be not wholly of purpose any where set down in the Apostles’ writings, yet sundry speeches there are which insinuate the chiefest things that belong unto that action: as when Paul and Barnabas are said6 to have fasted, prayed, and made presbyters: when Timothy is willed to “lay hands suddenly on no man7,” for fear of participating with other men’s sins. For this cause the order of the primitive Church was, between choice and ordination to have some space for such probation and trial as the Apostle doth mention in deacons8, saying, “Let them first be proved, and then minister, if so be they be found blameless.”
Alexander Severus9 beholding in his time how careful the Church of Christ was, especially for this point; how after the choice of their pastors they used to publish the names of the parties chosen, and not to give them the final act of approbation till they saw whether any let or impediment would be alleged; he gave commandment that the like should also be done in his own imperial elections, adding this as a reason wherefore he so required, namely, “For that both Christians and Jews being so wary about the ordination of their priests, it seemed very unequal for him not to be in like sort circumspect, to whom he committed the government of provinces, containing power over men’s both estates and lives.” This the canon itself doth provide for, requiring before ordination scrutiny10: “Let them diligently be examined three days together before the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday11] let them be presented unto the bishop.” And even this in effect also is the very use of the church of England, at all solemn ordaining of ministers; and if all ordaining were solemn, I must confess it were much the better.
The pretended disorder of the church of England is, that bishops ordain them to whose election the people give no voices, and so the bishops make them alone; that is to say, they give ordination without popular election going before, which ancient bishops neither did nor might do. Now in very truth, if the multitude have hereunto a right, which right can never be translated from them for any cause, then is there no remedy but we must yield, that unto the lawful making of ministers the voice of the people is required; and that according to the adverse party’s assertion12, such as make ministers without asking the people’s consent, do but exercise a certain tyranny.
At the first erection of the commonwealth of Rome, the people (for so it was then fittest) determined of all affairs: afterwards this growing troublesome, their senators did that for them which themselves before had done: in the end all came to one man’s hands, and the emperor alone was instead of many senators.
In these things the experience of time may breed both civil and ecclesiastical change from that which hath been before received, neither do latter things always violently exclude former, but the one growing less convenient than it hath been, giveth place to that which is now become more. That which was fit for the people themselves to do at the first, might afterwards be more convenient for them to do by some other: which other is not thereby proved a tyrant, because he alone doth that which a multitude were wont to do, unless by violence he take that authority upon him, against the order of law, and without any public appointment; as with us if any did, it should (I suppose) not long be safe for him so to do.
This answer (I hope) will seem to be so much the more reasonable, in that themselves, who stand against us, have furnished us therewith. For whereas against the making of ministers by bishops alone, their use hath been to object, what sway the people did bear when Stephen and the rest were ordained deacons; they begin to espy how their own platform swerveth not a little from that example wherewith they control the practice of others. For touching the form of the people’s concurrence in that action, they observe it not; no, they plainly profess that they are not in this point bound to be followers of the Apostles. The Apostles ordained whom the people had first chosen. They hold, that their ecclesiastical senate ought both to choose, and also to ordain. Do not themselves then take away that which the Apostles gave the people, namely, the privilege of choosing ecclesiastical officers? They do. But behold in what sort they answer it. “By the sixth and the fourteenth of the Acts13” (say they) “it doth appear that the people had the chiefest power of choosing. Howbeit that, as unto me it seemeth, was done upon special cause which doth not so much concern us, neither ought it to be drawn unto the ordinary and perpetual form of governing the Church. For as in establishing commonweals, not only if they be popular, but even being such as are ordered by the power of a few the chiefest, or as by the sole authority of one, till the same be established, the whole sway is in the people’s hands, who voluntarily appoint those magistrates by whose authority they may be governed; so that afterward not the multitude itself, but those magistrates which are chosen by the multitude, have the ordering of public affairs: after the selfsame manner it fared in establishing also the Church; when there was not as yet any placed over the people, all authority was in them all; but when they all had chosen certain to whom the regiment of the Church was committed, this power is not now any longer in the hands of the whole multitude, but wholly in theirs who are appointed guides of the Church. Besides, in the choice of deacons, there was also another special cause wherefore the whole Church at that time should choose them. For inasmuch as the Grecians murmured against the Hebrews, and complained that in the daily distribution which was made for relief of the poor, they were not indifferently respected, nor such regard had of their widows as was meet; this made it necessary that they all should have to deal in the choice of those unto whom that care was afterwards to be committed, to the end that all occasion of jealousies and complaints might be removed. Wherefore that which was done by the people for certain causes, before the Church was fully settled, may not be drawn out and applied unto a constant and perpetual form of ordering the Church.”
Let them cast the discipline of the church of England into the same scales where they weigh their own, let them give us the same measure which here they take, and our strifes shall soon be brought to a quiet end. When they urge the Apostles as precedents; when they condemn us of tyranny, because we do not in making ministers the same which the Apostles did; when they plead, “That with us one alone doth ordain, and that our ordinations are without the people’s knowledge, contrary to that example which the blessed Apostles gave:” we do not request at their hands allowance as much as of one word we speak in our own defence, if that which we speak be of our own; but that which themselves speak, they must be contented to listen unto. To exempt themselves from being over far pressed with the Apostles’ example, they can answer, “That which was done by the people once upon special causes, when the Church was not yet established, is not to be made a rule for the constant and continual ordering of the Church.” In defence of their own election, although they do not therein depend on the people so much as the Apostles in the choice of deacons, they think it a very sufficient apology, that there were special considerations why deacons at that time should be chosen by the whole Church, but not so now. In excuse of dissimilitudes between their own and the Apostles’ discipline, they are contented to use this answer, “That many things were done in the Apostles’ times, before the settling of the Church, which afterward the Church was not tied to observe.” For countenance of their own proceedings, wherein their governors do more than the Apostles, and their people less than under the Apostles the first Churches are found to have done, at the making of ecclesiastical officers, they deem it a marvellous reasonable kind of pleading to some [say?] “That even as in commonweals, when the multitude have once chosen many or one to rule over them, the right which was at the first in the whole body of the people is now derived into those many or that one which is so chosen; and that this being done, it is not the whole multitude, to whom the administration of such public affairs any longer appertaineth, but that which they did, their rulers may now do lawfully without them: after the selfsame manner it standeth with the Church also.”
How easy and plain might we make our defence, how clear and allowable even unto them, if we could but obtain of them to admit the same things consonant unto equity in our mouths, which they require to be so taken from their own! If that which is truth, being uttered in maintenance of Scotland and Geneva, do not cease to be truth when the church of England once allegeth it, this great crime of tyranny wherewith we are charged hath a plain and an easy defence.
“Yea, but we do not at all ask the people’s approbation, which they do14, whereby they shew themselves more indifferent and more free from taking away the people’s right.” Indeed, when their lay-elders have chosen whom they think good, the people’s consent thereunto is asked, and if they give their approbation, the thing standeth warranted for sound and good. But if not, is the former choice overthrown? No, but the people is to yield to reason; and if they which have made the choice, do so like the people’s reason, as to reverse their own deed at the hearing of it, then a new election to be made15; otherwise the former to stand, notwithstanding the people’s negative and dislike. What is this else but to deal with the people, as those nurses do with infants, whose mouths they besmear with the backside of the spoon, as though they had fed them, when they themselves devour the food? They cry in the ears of the people, that all men’s consent should be had unto that which concerns all; they make the people believe we wrong them, and deprive them of their right in making ministers, whereas with us the people have commonly far more sway and force than with them. For inasmuch as there are but two main things observed in every ecclesiastical function, Power to exercise the duty itself, and some charge of People whereon to exercise the same; the former of these is received at the hands of the whole visible catholic Church. For it is not any one particular multitude that can give power, the force whereof may reach far and wide indefinitely, as the power of order doth, which whoso hath once received, there is no action which belongeth thereunto but he may exercise effectually the same in any part of the world without iterated ordination. They whom the whole Church hath from the beginning used as her agents in conferring this power, are not either one or more of the laity, and therefore it hath not been heard of that ever any such were allowed to ordain ministers: only persons ecclesiastical, and they, in place of calling, superiors both unto deacons and unto presbyters; only such persons ecclesiastical have been authorized to ordain both, and to give them the power of order, in the name of the whole Church. Such were the Apostles, such was Timothy, such was Titus, such are bishops. Not that there is between these no difference, but that they all agree in preeminence of place above both presbyters and deacons, whom they otherwise might not ordain16.
Now whereas hereupon some do infer, that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves; in which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie17, “By what authority he could administer the holy sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the power of ordination did not belong, according to the ancient orders and customs of the Church; sith Calvin and they who joined with him in that action were no bishops:” and Athanasius maintaineth the fact of Macarius a presbyter18, which overthrew the holy table whereat one Ischyras would have ministered the blessed Sacrament, having not been consecrated thereunto by laying on of some bishop’s hands19, according to the ecclesiastical canons; as also Epiphanius inveigheth sharply against divers for doing the like, when they had not episcopal ordination: to this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop.
The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain: howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways.
Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour he useth without requiring that men should authorize them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens himself from heaven: and thus even such as believed not our Saviour’s teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful teacher sent from God: “Thou art a teacher sent from God, otherwise none could do those things which thou doest20.” Luther did but reasonably21 therefore, in declaring that the senate of Mulheuse should do well to ask of Muncer, from whence he received power to teach, who it was that had called him; and if his answer were that God had given him his charge, then to require at his hands some evident sign thereof for men’s satisfaction: because so God is wont, when he himself is the author of any extraordinary calling.
Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep: where the church must needs have some ordained, and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give, place. And therefore we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops: by the imposition of their hands it is, that the Church giveth power of order, both unto presbyters and deacons.
Now when that power so received is once to have any certain subject whereon it may work, and whereunto it is to be tied, here cometh in the people’s consent, and not before. The power of order I may lawfully receive, without asking leave of any multitude; but that power I cannot exercise upon any one certain people utterly against their wills; neither is there in the church of England any man, by order of law, possessed with pastoral charge over any parish, but the people in effect do choose him thereunto. For albeit they choose not by giving every man personally his particular voice, yet can they not say that they have their pastors violently obtruded upon them, inasmuch as their ancient and original interest therein hath been by orderly means derived into the patron who chooseth for them. And if any man be desirous to know how patrons came to have such interest, we are to consider, that at the first erection of churches, it seemed but reasonable in the eyes of the whole Christian world to pass that right to them and their successors, on whose soil and at whose charge the same were founded22. This all men gladly and willingly did, both in honour of so great piety, and for encouragement of many others unto the like, who peradventure else would have been as slow to erect churches or to endow them, as we are forward both to spoil them and to pull them down.
It is no true assertion therefore in such sort as the pretended reformers mean it23, “That all ministers of God’s word ought to be made by consent of many, that is to say, by the people’s suffrages; that ancient bishops neither did nor might ordain otherwise; and that ours do herein usurp a far greater power than was, or than lawfully could have been granted unto bishops which were of old.”
Furthermore, as touching spiritual jurisdiction, our bishops, they say, do that which of all things is most intolerable, and which the ancient never did. “Our bishops excommunicate and release alone24, whereas the censures of the Church neither ought, nor were wont to be administered otherwise than by consent of many.” Their meaning here, when they speak of many25, is not as before it was; when they hold that ministers should be made with consent of many, they understand by many, the multitude, or common people; but in requiring that many should evermore join with the bishop in the administration of church censures, they mean by many, a few lay-elders chosen out of the rest of the people to that purpose. This they say is ratified by ancient councils26, by ancient bishops27 this was practised. And the reason hereof, as Beza supposeth28, was, “Because if the power of ecclesiastical censures did belong unto any one, there would this great inconveniency follow, ecclesiastical regiment should be changed into mere tyranny, or else into a civil royalty: therefore no one, either bishop or presbyter, should or can alone exercise that power, but with his ecclesiastical consistory he ought to do it, as may appear by the old discipline.” And is it possible, that one so grave and judicious should think it in earnest tyranny for a bishop to excommunicate, whom law and order hath authorized so to do? or be persuaded that ecclesiastical regiment degenerateth into civil regality, when one is allowed to do that which hath been at any time the deed of more? Surely, far meaner witted men than the world accounteth Mr. Beza do easily perceive, that tyranny is power violently exercised against order, against law; and that the difference of these two regiments, ecclesiastical and civil, consisteth in the matter about which the actions of each are conversant; and not in this, that civil royalty admitteth but one, ecclesiastical government requireth many supreme correctors. Which allegation, were it true, would prove no more than only that some certain number is necessary for the assistance of the bishop; but that a number of such as they do require is necessary, how doth it prove? Wherefore albeit bishops should now do the very same which the ancients did, using the college of presbyters under them as their assistants when they administer church-censures, yet should they still swerve utterly from that which these men so busily labour for, because the agents whom they require to assist in those cases are a sort of lay-elders, such as no ancient bishop ever was assisted with.
Shall these fruitless jars and janglings never cease? shall we never see end of them? How much happier were the world if those eager taskmasters whose eyes are so curious and sharp in discerning what should be done by many and what by few, were all changed into painful doers of that which every good Christian man ought either only or chiefly to do, and to be found therein doing when that great and glorious Judge of all men’s both deeds and words shall appear? In the meanwhile, be it one that hath this charge, or be they many that be his assistants, let there be careful provision that justice may be administered, and in this shall our God be glorified more than by such contentious disputes.
← The forealleged arguments answered. · Contents · Concerning the civil power and authority whi →
Footnotes
-
Liv. lib. i. [c. 49.] ↩
-
[So edd. Query, reverence.] 1886. ↩
-
[Not “ancients:” comp. b. v. lxi. 1; infra, xiv. 13. xv. 1, 12.] ↩
-
[Ep. xxxiii. p. 46. ed. Baluz. “Presbyteris et diaconibus et universæ plebi salutem. In ordinationibus clericis, fratres clarissimi, solemus vos ante consulere, et mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare. Sed expectanda non sunt testimonia humana cum præcedunt divina suffragia. Aurelius frater noster, illustris adolescens, a Domino jam probatus et Deo carus … bis confessus et bis confessionis suæ victoria gloriosus, &c… . Merebatur talis clericæ ordinationis ulteriores gradus et incrementa majora … Sed interim placuit ut ab officio lectoris incipiat.”] ↩
-
[“Plus vident oculi quam oculus” vid. Erasm. Colloq. Opp. t. i. p. 824. ed. Clerici. Lugd. Bat. 1703.] ↩
-
Acts xiv. 23. ↩
-
1 Tim. v. 22. ↩
-
[1 Tim. iii. 10.] ↩
-
Lamprid. in Alex. Sever. [p. 130. B. ed. Salmas. Paris. 1620. “Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel præpositos facere, vel procuratores, i. e. rationales, ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans populum ut siquis quid haberet criminis, probaret manifestis rebus; si non probasset subiret pœnam capitis: dicebatque, grave esse, quum id Christiani et Judæi facerent in prædicandis sacerdotibus qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunæ hominum committerentur et capita.”] ↩
-
Dec. Quando Epis. sect. Igitur. [pars i. distinct. 24. p. 114. Lugd. 1572. from the council of Nantes, of uncertain date. “Episcopus quando ordinationem facere disponit, omnes qui ad sacrum ministerium accedere volunt, feria quarta ante ipsam ordinationem evocandi sunt ad civitatem, una cum archipresbyteris qui eos repræsentare debent. Et tunc episcopus e latere suo dirigere debet sacerdotes et alios prudentes viros, gnaros legis divinæ, et exercitatos in ecclesiasticis sanctionibus, qui ordinandorum vitam, genus, patriam, ætatem, institutionem, locum ubi educati sunt, si sint bene literati, si in lege Domini instructi, diligenter investigent. Ante omnia, si fidem catholicam firmiter teneant, et verbis simplicibus asserere queant. Ipsi autem, quibus hoc committitur, cavere debent, ne aut favoris gratia, aut cujuscunque muneris cupiditate allecti, a vero devient, ut indignum et minus idoneum ad sacros gradus suscipiendos episcopi manibus applicent. Quod si fecerint; et ille qui indigne accessit ab altari removebitur, et illi qui donum Sp. sancti vendere conati sunt, coram Deo jam condemnati ecclesiastica dignitate carebunt. Igitur per tres continuos dies diligenter examinentur; et sic sabbato, qui probati inventi sunt, episcopo repræsententur.” Concil. Harduin. vi. pars i. 459.] ↩
-
Cf. V. lxxii. 8. ↩
-
Eccl. Discipl. p. 34. [or p. 22. Cartwright’s Translation, 1617.] ↩
-
Eccl. Discipl. fol. 41. [or p. 27 of Cartwright’s version.] ↩
-
[Eccl. Discipl. transl. by T. C. p. 28. “I would not that the judgment of the rest of the Church should be contemned and neglected, or that the council or elders of the Church should of their own authority set one over the Church whom they list against the Church’s will, but that the elders going before the people also follow, and having heard and understood their sentence and decree, may either by some outward token or else by their silence allow it if it be to be liked of, or gainsay it if it be not just and upright.”] ↩
-
Eccles. Discipl. p. 41. [Ibid. “And not only gainsay it, but if just cause of their disliking may be brought, make it altogether void and of none effect, until at the last a meet one may be chosen by the authority and voices of the elders, and allowed of by the consent and approbation of the rest of the Church. So that herein there is no cause to complain that by the bringing in of the rule of a few the majesty of the whole Church is diminished.”] ↩
-
“Neque enim fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem.” Comment. q. Ambros. tribuuntur, in 1 Tim. 3 [§ 7.] ↩
-
[ad 1561. Thuanus, lib. 28. t. ii. p. 45. Gen. 1620. “Claudius Espencæus, vir doctus et pacis ecclesiæ studiosus, a Lotaringo loqui jussus, postquam præfatus est expetivisse jam a multo tempore ut colloquendi copia fieret, et interea semper a suppliciis, quibus ob religionem miseri homines antea afficiebantur abhorruisse; demirari se subinde sæpius dixit, qua auctoritate Protestantes et a quo vocati et instituti ad ministerium essent: et cum neminem citarent, a quo manus impositionem suscepissent, quomodo legitimi pastores censeri possent: nam manifestum esse, vocatione ordinaria minime institutos; cum autem ad extraordinariam miraculis opus sit, nec ea ipsi edant, necessario sequi, nec secundum ordinem nec extra ordinem eos in domum Dei ingressos esse.] ↩
-
[Apol. con. Arian. c. 12. sqq. t. i. 134. ed. Bened. Πόθεν οὐ̑ν πρεσβύτερος Ἰσχύρας; τίνος καταστήσαντος, ἀ̑ρα Κολλούθου; του̑το γὰρ λοιπόν· ἀλλ’ ὅτι Κόλλουθος πρεσβύτερος ὢν ἐτελεύτησε, καὶ πα̑σα χεὶρ αὐτου̑ γέγονεν ἄκυρος, καὶ πάντες οἱ παρ’ αὐτου̑ κατασταθέντες ἐν τῳ̑ σχίσματι λαικοὶ γεγόνασι, καὶ οὕτως συνάγονται, δη̑λον, καὶ οὐδενὶ καθέστηκεν ἀμϕίβολον· πω̑ς οὐ̑ν ἰδιώτης ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οἴκισκον οἰκω̑ν ἰδιωτικὸν, ποτήριον ἔχειν μυστικὸν πιστενθείη;] ↩
-
Ἐπισκοπη̑ς χειροθεσίαν. ↩
-
John iii. 2. ↩
-
[Sleidan. Comment. v. p. 58. Argent. 1556. “Cum ejectus e Saxonia finibus… . . Muncerus oberraret, ac rumor increbuisset eum cogitare Mulhusium, Lutherus… datis ad senatum literis, graviter monet, ne recipiat … recte facturum senatum, si roget ex illo, quis docendi munus ipsi commiserit, quis evocavit? et si Deum nominet authorem, tum jubeant hanc suam vocationem aliquo evidenti signo comprobare, quod si repræsentare non possit, ut tum repudietur: hoc enim esse Deo proprium et familiare, quoties formulam consuetam et rationem ordinariam velit immutari, ut tum voluntatem suam aliquo signo declaret.” v. Fleury, l. 128. c. 45. a. 1523.] ↩
-
[See b. V. c. lxxx. § 11.] ↩
-
[1 Adm. p. 2. ed. 1617. “Then election was made by the elders with the common consent of the whole Church: now every one picketh out for himself some notable good benefice, he obtaineth the next advowson, by money or by favour, and so thinketh himself to be sufficiently chosen. Then, the congregation had authority to call ministers; instead thereof now they run, they ride, and by unlawful suit and buying prevent other suitors also. Then no minister placed in any congregation but by the consent of the people; now that authority is given into the hands of the bishop alone.” Whitg. Answ. 42; T. C. i. 28, al. 43, &c.; Def. 154, &c.; T. C. ii. 194, &c.] ↩
-
[1 Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 662. “Then it was said, ‘Tell the Church;’ now it is spoken, ‘Complain to my lord’s grace, primate and metropolitan of all England, or to his inferior my lord bishop of the diocese; if not to him, shew the chancellor or official or commissary.’ ” Answ. ibid. “In that place of Matthew, as all learned interpreters both old and new do determine, the Church signifieth such as have authority in the Church.” T. C. i. 146, al. 183, &c.; Def. 662-671; T. C. iii. 77-88.] ↩
-
[T. C. i. 147. al. 184. “It must needs be the meaning of our Saviour Christ that the excommunication should be by many and not by one; and by the Church and not by the minister of the Church alone.” Ibid. 183. “That the charge of excommunication belongeth not unto one, to the minister, but chiefly to the eldership and pastor, it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonition allege out of St. Matthew, xviii. 17; which place I have proved before to be necessarilyunderstanded of the elders of the Church.”] ↩
-
Concil. Carthag. iv. c. 23. [ad 398. “Ut episcopus nullam causam audiat absque præsentia clericorum suorum; alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi, nisi clericorum præsentia confirmetur.” i. 980. ed. Harduin.] ↩
-
Cypr. lib. iii. Ep. 10. [5. ed. Baluz. p. 11. “Solus rescribere nihil potui, quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere.”] 14. [11. Baluz. p. 21. “Audio quosdam de presbyteris, nec evangelii memores, nec quid ad nos martyres scripserint cogitantes, nec episcopo honorem sacerdotii sui et cathedræ reservantes, jam cum lapsis communicare cœpisse et offerre pro illis et eucharistiam dare, quando oporteat ad hoc per ordinem perveniri. Nam cum in minoribus delictis quæ non in Deum committuntur pœnitentia agatur justo tempore, et exomologesis fiat inspecta vita ejus qui agit pœnitentiam, nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius illi ab episcopo et clero manusfuerit imposita: quanto magis in his gravissimis et extremis delictis caute omnia et moderate secundum disciplinam Domini observari oportet! … Audiant quæso patienter consilium nostrum, expectent regressionem nostram, ut cum ad vos per Dei misericordiam venerimus, convocati coëpiscopi plures, secundum Domini disciplinam et confessorum præsentiam et vestram quoque sententiam, beatorum martyrum literas et desideria examinare possimus.”] Lib. ii. Ep. 8. [59. Baluz. p. 97. “Significasti de Victore quodam presbytero, quod ei, antequam pœnitentiam plenam egisset, et Domino Deo, in quem deliquerat, satisfecisset, Therapius collega noster immaturo tempore et præpropera festinatione pacem dederit. Quæ res nos satis movit, recessum esse a decreti nostri auctoritate, ut ante legitimum et plenum tempus satisfactionis, et sine petitu et conscientia plebis, nulla infirmitate urgente ac necessitate cogente, pax ei concederetur. Sed librato apud nos diu consilio, satis fuit objurgare Therapium collegam nostrum, quod temere hoc fecerit, et instruxisse, ne quid tale de cætero faciat. Pacem tamen quomodocunque a sacerdote Dei semel datam non putavimus auferendam.” These passages are producted by T. C. i. 149. al. 187, and maintained, iii. 87-89, in order to shew that the bishop might not absolve alone. Comp. Whitg. Def. 674.] ↩
-
[Compare De Presbyterio et Excommunicatione: p. 112, 113. Gen. 1590. “Hoc veluti fræno, (sc. presbyterio) coercebatur tum ipsorum pastorum tum etiam populi potestas, ne illa quidem in oligarchiam, ista vero in ochlocratiam degeneraret. Itaque mihi quidem ecclesia Christiana, ut et vetus illa Israelitica, ex illo triplici statu divinissime constituta videtur: cujus caput est et monarcha longe supra omnia eminens unicus ille noster Pontifex æternus, cujus figura fuit Leviticus ille Pontifex … Isti vero cœtus divinissimam aristocratiam referunt. Universa denique multitudo, qua conscia, et ex cujus consensu cœtus ipsi aristocratici constituuntur, cælestis democratiæ perfectum exemplum præbet.” And Epist. xii. p. 220. ad 1567. Tract. t. iii. Gen. 1582. “Aiunt … excommunicationes et absolutiones in curiis quibusdam episcopalibus in Anglia fieri non ex presbyterii (quod nullum ibi sit) sententia, neque ex Dei verbo, sed ex quorundam jurisconsultorum et aliorum ejusmodi, immo etiam interdum unius cujuspiam auctoritate … Respondemus, nobis pæne incredibile videri, ejusmodi abusum perversissimi moris et exempli adhuc in eo regno usurpari, ubi puritas doctrinæ vigeat. Jus enim excommunicandi ante papisticam illam tyrannidem nunquam penes unum fuisse comperietur, sed penes presbyterium, et quidem non excluso penitus populo.” This is the epistle to the leading Puritans, which was so industriously circulated in England. Vid. vol. ii, p. 133, note 3.] ↩