Full text of "Two treatises on the Christian priesthood and on the dignity of the episcopal order : with a prefatory discourse in answer to a book entitled The rights of the Christian Church, &c., and an appendix"

See other formats

a!
Pe es eet

= ~ ong
*. eee
- emt Swe
6 ees SS
AAS a =
eae SS.

Ete
Pa Mag tn Te tage,
= Ae tee,
NP Ae ae

Library of The Theological Seminary

PRINCETON -: NEW JERSEY

CSD
A donation from Sbephen folwell

BY 659% .Ho 1847 v.3

Hickes, George, 1642-1715.
Two treatises on the
Christian priesthood and on

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009

https://archive.org/details/twotreatisesonchOShick

a / ( ales
Ly iS rary Pa A Ne lo- Ca in

TWO TREATISES,

ON THE

CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD,

AND ON THE

DIGNITY OF THE EPISCOPAL ORDER:

A PREFATORY DISCOURSE

IN ANSWER TO

A BOOK ENTITLED, THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH, &c.,

AND AN APPENDIX.

BY GEORGE HICKES, D.D.,

SOMETIME FELLOW OF LINCOLN COLLEGE AND DEAN OF WORCESTER.

THE FOURTH EDITION.

VOL; Tit.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER;
AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.

M DCCC XLVIIIL,

eo ae (oa
00, pene ene we d “ Bo

™

ay avs

vite i fH AAT TO PEL
-
; ‘ |
Seg
= - e

¢ - 7

x =
“<7

; =i

; - Sn ee
5 . % > » j

a 3 |

+ . °

w
>
i -
* - »
: OXFORD: aad
PRINTED BY 1. SHRIMPTON.
en Fr
os » * bef

,. 2 aS -

Ea uk: FB ei Ni Dell oe.

DADADAAAAA, ,
Ada,

gree OE
HORTON

APPENDIX. No. 1.
Page
THE ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER,
ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER
AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS, AND OTHER
RITES AND CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH, AFTER THE USE
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, SET FORTH BY ACT OF PAR-
LIAMENT ANNO 2 & 3 EDWARD VI. - - - - 1

APPENDIX. No. 2.

THE ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
OR HOLY COMMUNION, AS IT IS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON
PRAYER, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS, AND
OTHER PARTS OF DIVINE SERVICE: PRINTED AT EDINBURG,
FOR THE USE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, MDCXXXVII. - 29

APPENDIX. No. 3,

A REPRESENTATION OF A MEDAL OF KING HENRY VIILI., A.D.
1545. : : - - - : - - 47

APPENDIX. No. 4.

AN EXTRACT OF A SERMON UPON 1 TIM. 11. 1, 2. OF THE DIG-
NITY AND DUTY OF THE MINISTRY. PREACHED BY GEORGE
DOWNAME, D.D., AND PUBLISHED AT LONDON, 1608. - - 49

APPENDIX. No. 5.

AN EXTRACT FROM DUPIN’S PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH DISSER-
TATION OF HIS BOOK, ENTITLED, “ DE ANTIQUA ECCLESLE DIS-
CIPLINA,” PRINTED AT PARIS 1686. - - - - 83

v1 CONTENTS.

APPENDIX. No. 6.

Page

A TREATISE OF ISAAC CASAUBON “DE LIBERTATE ECCLESIAS-
TICA,” TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN = 5

CHAP. I.

THE CAUSE AND OCCASION OF THIS TREATISE. THE EXPLICATION OF
THE WORD LIBERTAS. VARIOUS KINDS OF LIBERTY, THAT CHRISTIAN
LIBERTY GIVEN BY GOD, IS OFTEN MENTIONED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS,
BUT NOT ECCLESIASTICAL, OR THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH. A MIS-
TAKE OF THE INTERPRETERS OF THE CANON LAW IN DEFINING THE
LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH. A PARTICULAR ENQUIRY INTO ITS DEFINI-
TION - - = = ~ = = =

CHAP. If.

WHAT, AND OF WHAT KIND THE LIBERTY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH WAS,
FROM ITS FIRST RISE TO THE TIMES OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, A
COMPARISON OF BOTH POWERS, ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL, AND CON-
CERNING THE RIGHT OF EACH, AS WELL ORDINARY AS EXTRAORDINARY

I. The Church and the State differ sometimes both in reality and concep-
tion; sometimes in conception only - - - - -
II. In every Society, which has different ends, the same persons may in dif-
ferent respects both be superiors and subjects - - - -
III. The Christian Church and State acknowledges Christ only as King
and Priest - - - - - - = =
IV. The prince and the priest, or the bishop, receive their power from Christ,
both King and Priest; the one the civil, the other the sacerdotal power,
but in different respects - - - - - -
VY. The supreme power in a well-ordered State is the civil not the sacerdo-
tal power - - : = = = = =

CHAPS TL:

WHAT AND OF WHAT KIND THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS FROM THE

TIMES OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT TO GREGORY THE GREAT, BISHOP OF
ROME - - - - - - =- - =

I. The Christian Church received the liberty of religion from princes -
II. The ancient Church under Christian princes was wont to convene sy-
nods, either by the prince’s express command, or with his tacit consent -
III. The councils of the ancient Church of these times were confirmed by
the emperor and not by the pope of Rome - = = bz

IV. There lay an appeal in those times from the sentences of councils to a
greater council or to the prince - . - - =

101

121

ib.

122

126

129

142

154

156

181

189

CONTENTS. Vil
APPENDIX. No. 7.

Page

TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH DIVINES AND OTHER WRITERS TO

THE DOCTRINES CONTAINED IN THE TREATISE ON THE CHRIS-
TIAN PRIESTHOOD é = 5 = = - 255
ARCHBISHOP LAUD - - - - - - - 255
HENRY HAMMOND, D.D.— - - - - = = - ib.
HENRY DODWELL, A.M. - - - - - - - 260
BISHOP PATRICK = - - - - - 262, 274
THOMAS BENNET, A.M. - . - - - - - 266
JOHN HUGHES, A.M. - - - - - - - ib.
BISHOP BULL = = = = ~ - = = Diy
PETER HEYLIN, D.D. - - - - - - - 275
CASSANDER = - = - - - - - 277
GROTIUS = = = - = ~ - - 278
RICHARD BAXTER - - - - - - - 281

APPENDIX. No. 8.

PRELIMINARY DISSERTATIONS TO THE EDITION OF ST. CHRY-

SOSTOM DE SACERDOTIO, BY THE REV. JOHN HUGHES, A.M.,

OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; TRANSLATED FROM THE
ORIGINAL LATIN = = = - - - 283

DISSERTATION I.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS A TRUE AND PROPER (ALTHOUGH IT BE A SPIRI-

TUAL) SOCIETY, AND DISTINCT FROM ALL THE SOCIETIES OF THIS WORLD;

AND A SOCIETY TO WHICH ALL MEN ARE OBLIGED TO JOIN THEMSELVES
UNDER THE GREATEST PERIL OF THEIR SOULS - ~ = = 299

DISSERTATION II.

THE APOSTLES CONSTITUTED BISHOPS FOR THE PERPETUAL GOVERNMENT

OF THE CHURCH, WITH A PECULIAR POWER OF ORDINATION = = SHB
DISSERTATION III.

THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY FROM THE TIMES OF CONSTANTINE HAS NEVER

INCORPORATED WITHA THE CIVIL: BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL ITS PURELY
SPIRITUAL POWERS HAS EVER REMAINED ENTIRE AND DISTINCT - 305

DISSERTATION IV.

THE RIGHT OF EXCOMMUNICATION BELONGS TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH BY
DIVINE KIGHT - - - - - - -

382

Vill CONTENTS.

DISSERTATION V.
Page
THE LAITY NEVER RECEIVED THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
WITHOUT HAVING IT FIRST CONSECRATED BY PRIESTS - . - 407

DISSERTATION VI.

OF THE POWER OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IN THE ELECTIONS OF THE
CLERGY - - - - - - - - 431

AN ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING THE TWO PRECEDING TRANS-
LATIONS OF ISAAC CASAUBON DE LIBERTATE ECCLESIASTICA,
AND OF MR. HUGHES’ PRELIMINARY DISSERTATIONS - 451

APPENDIX. No. 9.

TESTIMONIES TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE TWO TREATISES FROM
THE WRITINGS OF DR. THOMAS JACKSON = - - 455

APPENDIX. No. 10.

SANCTI PATRIS NOSTRI EPHRAEMI SYRI, DIACONI ECCLESIA
EDESSEN® RELIGIOSISSIMI DE SACERDOTIO. INTERPRETE
ET SCHOLIASTE GERARDO VOSSIO TUNGRENSI : - 459

APPENDIX. No. 11.

A LETTER FROM THE REVEREND MR. J. M——-N TO DR. GEORGE
HICKES, CONCERNING SOME PASSAGES IN HIS CHRISTIAN
PRIESTHOOD ; WITH DR. HICKES’ ANSWER - - - 467

THO
SEMIN KE ae

Vuviveviw eo

Ae BON. Ly EX,

No. l.

THE ORDER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, ACCORDING
TO THE FORM OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER AND ADMINISTRA-
TION OF THE SACRAMENTS, AND OTHER RITES AND CEREMONIES OF THE
CHURCH, AFTER THE USE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, SET FORTH BY
ACT OF PARLIAMENT ANNO 2 & 3 EDWARDI VI., TO BE USED THROUGH-
OUT ENGLAND, AND IN WALES, AT CALICE, AND THE MARCHES OF THE
SAME, AND PRINTED AT LONDON BY EDWARD WHITCHURCH. 15498,

Anno 2 & 3 Edwardi VI. cap. 1. § 1.

[Che king’s majesty... bath appointed the arch-
bishop of Canterburp and certatn of the most
learned and Discreet bishops and other learned
men of this realm to consider and ponder the
prenuses,| And thereupon habing as well epe
and respert to the most sinrere, and pure
Christian reliqgton taught bp the Srripture,
as fo the usages in the prinmitibe Church,
should draw, and make one conbentent and
meet order, rite, and fashion of ronunon and
open praper, and administration of the Sarra-
ments to be had, and used in [his majestp’s
realm of England and tn Gales;| the which
at this time, bp the atv of the Holp Ghost, with
one uniform agreement ts of them concluded,
set forth, and delibered to His highness, to his
great romfort and quietness of mind, in a book
intituled Che Book of Common Praper, Xe.

® (The text has been collated with Edouardi Whitchurche. Cum privi-
that of the earliest edition of this legio ad imprimendum solum. Anno
Prayer Book. ‘ Londini in Officina Do. 1549. Mense Maii.”’ }

HICKES., B

APPENDIX.
No. I.

4 The Communion.

The Supper of the Lorde, and the Holy Communion,
commontp called the Hasse °.

So mann as intenve to bee partakers of the holy Communion, shall svqnifie their
names to the Curate, ober night: or els in the morning, afore the beginning of
fPlatins, or immediatly after.

Anv if anw of those be an open and notorious euill liver, so that the congreqacion
by hom fs offended, or have Yorn any wrong to his neighbours, by toorde, or Dede :
The Curate shall cal Hom, and aduertise hom, in anp tise not to presume’ to the
Lorves table, untill he have openly declared Hpmseclf, to haue truly repented, and
amended his' former naughtie life: that the conqreqacton mate thereby be satisfer,
tohich afore were offended: and that he habe recompensed the parties, mhom he
Hath Dooen wrong unto, or at the least bee in full purpose so to Doe, as sane as He
conueniently maic. ;

{ The same ordre shal the Curate ose, with those betwixt whom he perceiveth
malice, and hatred to reiqne, not suffering them to bee partakers of the Lordes table,
ontill he knowe them to bee reconciley?, Anv ve one of the parties so at bariaunce,
be content to forqeue from the botome of his hearte, all that ihe other hath trespaced
against Him, and to make amendes, for that he Homselfe Hath effended: anv the
other partie till not bee perswaded to a goulp bnitie, but remavne still in His fro=
wardues and malice: The (Minister in that case, ought to admit the penitent per=
sone to the holy Communion, and not Hom that is obstinate.

{ pon the daie, anv at the time appointed for the ministracton of the holv
Communion, the priest thate shall execute the Holy ministerp, shall put opon hom

b De antiquitate hujus nominis
consulendus est, Card. Bona Rerum
Liturg., lib. i. cap. 3. [tom. i. p. 18.]
Ubi constat, Ambrosium, Augusti-
num, aliosque Ecclesiz Latin Scrip-
tores “eo nomine tanquam consueto,
et dudum fidelibus cognito usos fu-
RESEou

© VideJoan. Chrysost. Hom., { 1xxxii.
(al.) ] Ixxxill. in cap. xxvi. Matt. od
Mikpa Keira KdAaots [Tots avatiws weTE-
xovow, kK.T.A. Op., tom. vii. pp. 788,
789.] Card. Bone Rerum Liturgica-
rum, lib. ii. cap. 17. § 3. [tom. iii. p.
367.] “ Olim ante communionem cla-
mabat diaconus Sancta Sanctis, ac si
diceret, qui non est sanctus, non acce-
dat.’”” De quibus etiam verbis, vid.
Librum Pontificalem Eccl. Gree ab
Isaaco Haberto edit. cum notis, p. 249.
{Pars x. Lit. Ord. Obs. ii. De formula
Sancta Sanctis: ad ea verba 6 didkovos
expavel, mpdcxwuev’ 6 5& marpidpyns,
7a &yia Tots aylots. |

4 of wéAAovTes Thy Beiay emitehéoau
puotaywylav, dpelAovow eivat mponyou-
méevws wey KarnAAaymévor med” aravTwy,
kal wh €xew kara tivos.—[ Habert. Pon-
tific., p. 1. ]

© In Alex. Alesii Latina editione
edita Lipsia, 1551. [fol. 36.] Sacer-
dos indutus alba, casula vel cappa ad-
stabit altari. [This translation of the
Common Prayer Book of 1549 may be
regarded as an authorized one. It is
stated by Heylin (Hist. Ref., p. 79.) and
Burnet (Hist. Ref., vol. ii. p. 155, fol.)
that it was made for the use of Bucer
in his examination of the Book, imme-
diately on his coming to England in
April, 1549; as Bucer’s own words
(Buceri Scripta Anglicar., p. 456)
imply. It was two years afterwards
published at Leipsic for the use of
foreigners, under the title, Ordinatio
ecclesiz seu ministerii ecclesiastici, in
florentissimo regno Angliz conscripta
sermone patrio, et in Latinam linguam

The Communion. 3

the besture appointed for that ministracion, that is to save: a white Albe plain, communion

with a bestement or Cope. And there there be many WPriestes, or Deacons, there so

many shal be readp to helpe the Priest, in the ministracion, as shalbee requisite:

Anvd shall haue upon them Ipkewyse, the bestures appointed for their minister, that
is to sane, Albes, with tunacles. Then shall the Clearkes spng in Englishe for the
office, or Tntroite, (as they call it) a JPsalme appointed for that Vane.

The priest standyng humbly afore the midVes of the Altar’, shall sate the
Lordes JPraver, with this Collect.

Almightic GOD, onto hom all Heartes bee open, and all
Despres Rnofven, and from whom no secretes are Hi: clense
the thouqhtes of our Heartes, bp the inspiracion of thy
Holy spfrite: that fe map perfectly loue thee, and fwor-
thely maaqnifie thy holy name: Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Then shall he save a WPsalme appointed for the introites: wbhiche Psalme
ended, the Wriest shall sane, or els the Clearkes shall spng.

itf. Worde haue mercie bpon bs.
itf, Christ haue mereie pon bs.
iif, Lorde haue merce bpon vs.

Then the Wrieste standyng at Govves borve shall begin”.
Gilorp be to Grovd on High.
The Clearkesi.

And in vearth peace, good foill tofardes men.

Gee praise thee, Me blesse thee, woe worship thee, fe
qlorifie thee, Me gqeue thankes to thee for thy greate glory, @
Lorde GOD hHeauenlp kong, Cov the father almiaghtte.

bona fide conversa, et ad consolatio-
nem ecclesiarum Christi, ubicunque
locorum ac gentium his tristissimis
temporibus edita. Alexander Alesse
or Ales, the translator, had fled from
Scotland to England in 1534; was re-
ceived by Cromwell into his family,
grew into great favour with Hen.VII1.,
and was commonly called his scholar :
he was (Burnet says) much esteemed
for his learning and piety, and was en-
tertained by Cranmer at Lambeth.
After Cromwell’s death he went into
Saxony and became a professor at
Leipsic. See Burnet’s Hist. Ref., vol. i.
pp- 308, 214. ]

f Injunctions by king Edward VI.
1547. § 9. “They shall declare that
every person ought to know the said
things before they should receive the
blessed Sacrament of the Altar.”’ [ Wil-
kins’ Concilia, tom. iv. p. 5.] So 1
Edward VI. cap. 1.§ 1. ‘*The most
comfortable Sacrament of the body and
blood of Jesus Christ, commonly called
the Sacrament of the Altar.’

s Psalmum destinatum ad introitum
missz.—Alex. Ales, [fol. 36. ]

h Sacerdos stans ad medium altaris
canet.—[ Id. Ibid. ]

i Chorus.—[Id. Ibid.]

SERVICE.
1549.

APPENDIX.
NO. I.

4. The Communion.

@ Lorde the only begotten sonne Fesu Christ, OW Lorde
GOD, Lambe of GHD, sonne of the father, that takest

afoape the spnnes of the forlde, haue mercie bpon bs: thou

that takest afape the spnnes of the fworlde, recepue our
praper.

Thou that sittest at the riqhte Hande of Crovd the father,
Haue mercie bpon us: fFor thou onely art Holp, thou onelp
art the Lorde. Thou oneln (PW Christe) with the holve
Gihoste, arte moste Hiahe in the glory of Grod the father.
Amen,

Then the priest shall tune hym to the people and save.

The Worde be With pou.

The Aunstoere,

And with thy sptrite.

The Ariests.

Let bs prape.

Then shall folowe the Collect of the Dane, mith one of these two
Collectes folowing, for the kyng.

Almiqhtie Grod, Mhose kongdom is ecuerlastina, and potver
infinite, Haue mercie bpon the {hole congreqacion, and so
rule the Heart of thn chosen seruaunt Coward the stxt, our
kpng and gouernour: that be (Rnofepng Mbhose minister de
is) mane aboue all thinaes, seke thy honour and glory, and
that foe his subfectes (Quelp conspdering Mhose auctoritie He
hath) mape faithfully serue, honour, and humbly oben Him,
in thee, and for thee, according to thn blessed ford, and
orvdinaunce: Through Gesus Christe oure Worde, who ith
thee, and the bolp ghest, liueth, and reiqneth, euer one
Grod, Worlde Without ende. Amen.

Almiahtie and everlasting GOD, foee bee taught by thy
Holy foorde, that the Heartes of Wpnaes are in thy rule and
qouernaunce, and that thou doest Dispose, and turne them as
it semeth best to thy godly fMisedom: we Humbly beseche
thee, so to Dispose and gouerne the Heart of Edmard the
Sixt, thy seruaunt, our Wpng and gouernour, that in all bis
thoughtes, fordes, and foorkes, he mape euer seke thy Honour
and qlorp, and study to preserue thy people, committed to

) Sacerdos.—Alex. Ales. [ fol. 36.]

The Communion. 5

His charae, tn fealth, peace, and Grovlynes : Giraunt this, consinaion

@® merciful father, for thy dere sonnes sake, Fesus Christ 549.
our Lorde. Amen.

The Collectes enden, the priest, or he that is appointed, shall reave the
“Epistle, in a place assiqned for the purpose, saving.

The Epistle of satnet Paule toritten in the Chapiter
of to the.

The Minister then shall reave thepistle. Lmmeviatly alter the Lpisile ended,
the priest, or one appointed to reade the Grospell, shall save.

— The Holy Grospell written in the Chapitter of.
The Clearkes and people shal aunswere.
Glory be to thee, MW Lorde.

The Wriest or veacon then shali reade the Ghospell: After the Grospell envev,
the priest shall begin.

E beleue in one Gov.
The Clearkes shall syng the rest.

he father almiahtie maker of Heauen and pearth, and
of all thinges bisible, and inuisible: Anv in one Lorde Fesu
Christ, the onely begotten sonne of Grov, begotten of his
father before all foorldes, God of GOD, light of ltaht, berp
Grod of herp Grod, begotten, not made, heeyna of one sub-
staunce foith the father, by fMhom all thinges here made,
foho for 63 men, and for our saluacion, came dofone from
Heauen, and fas incarnate by the holy Gihoste, of the
Virgin Harp, and Mas made manne, and fas Crucified also
for bs Onder WBoncius Bilate, he suffered and foas buried,
and the thirde date he arose again according to the serip-
tures, and ascended into Heauen, and sitteth at the right
Hanvde of the father: And he shall come again ith glory,
to fudge both the quicke and the Bead.

And E£ beleue in the holy ahoste, the Horde and qeuer
of life, f&Mho procedeth from the father and the sonne, Moho
fith the father and the sonne together, is foorshipped and
qlorifiedy, fMho spake by the Wrophetes. And FE beleue one
Catholike and Apostolike Churche. EF acknokoleae one

6 The Communion.

avvenpix, Baptisme, for the remission of spnnes. And FE loke for the
“**_ vegurrecefon of the deade: and the Ipfe of the fworlde to
come, Amen.

J After the Creve ended, shall folowe the Sermon or Gomely, or some porcion of
one of the Homelics, as they shalbe hereafter Deuided: wherin if the people bee
not exhorted to the worthy recevuing of the holy Sacrament of the bodpe anv blouve
of our sautour Christ: then shall the Curate qeue this exhortacion, to those that be
minded to receiue the same.

Derelp beloucd in the Word, ve that minde to come to
the holy Communion of the bodie and bloud of our sauiour
Christ, must consivre Mhat S. Waule horiteth to the Covin-
thians, boty he exhorteth all persones diligently to trie and
examine themselues, before thei presume to eate of that
breade, and drpnke of that cup: for as the benetite ts qreat,
pf With a truly penitent Heart, and Ipuelp fapth, we recepue
that holy Sacrament: (for then foe spiritually eate the
fleshe of Christe, and drpnke His bloude, then fe diel in
Christ and Christ in 6s, Meee bee made one With Crist,
and Qhrist With 6s) so ts the Baunger great, pf fe recepue
the same bnivorthelp, for then fee become quitie of the bodp
and bloud of Christ our saufour, fe eate and drynke our
ofne Damnacion, not considerpng the Wordes bhodie. Wee
kindle Gods forathe ouer 6s, Me prouoke Hom to plaque bs
fith Diuerse Diseases, and sonderp kpndes ef Death. Ther-
fore pf ann bere be a blasphemer, aduouterer, or bee in
malice, or enuie, or in anp other qreuous crpme, (excepte de
be truelp sory therefore, and earnestly mpnded to leaue the
same bites, and do trust Hymselfe to bee reconciled to al-
migdtie God, and in Charitte With all the tworlde) lette hom
betvaple His spnnes, and not come to that bolp table, lest
after the takona of that most blessed breade: the deuill
enter into Hpm, as He Yd into Gudas, to foll Hom full of
all iniquitie, and brpnge Hpm to Vestruccton, bothe of body
and soule. Wudge therfore pour selues (hrethren) that pe
bee not fudged of the lovde. Wet pour mpnde be without
Desire to spnne, repent pou truely for pour spnneg past, Haue
an earnest and Ipuelp faith in @hriste our sautor, be in
perfect charitie Mith all men, so shall ne bee mete partakers
of those Holy misteries. And aboue all thynaes: ve must

The Communion. 7

qeue moste Humble and Heartie thankes to God the father, comnron
the sonne, and the holy ghoste, for the redempeion of the “1509.
fvorlie, bp the death and passion of our sauior Christe,

both God and man, Who dB Humble Homselfe euen to the

Death bpon the crosse, for 6s miserable synners, wobhiche lane

in Darknes and shadolve of death, that be mpahte make bs

the childven of Grod, and exalte bs to euerlastyna Ivfe. And

to thend that fore shoulde alfpape remembre the excedpng

loue of oure maister, and onelp sautor Gesu Christe, thus

dping for bs, and the innumerable benefites, twbhiche (by his
precious bloudshedping) he hath obteiqned to os, he hath

lefte in those Holy {Misteries, as a pledge of His loue, and a
continuall remembraunce of the same® bis ofmne blessed

bodp, and precious bloud, for bs to fede bpon spiritually, to

our endles comfort and consolation. To Him therfore ith

the father and the holp qhost, let 63 qeue (as fe are most
bounden) continual thankes, submitting our selfes fbholp to

his holy fpll and pleasure, and studping to serue bom in

true holines and righteousnes, all the dapes of our Ipfe.
Amen,

{ In Cathedral churches or other places, where there is ailie Communion, it
shal be sufficient to reade this exhortacion aboue written, once in a moneth. And
in parish churches, opon the weke daies it map be lefte Dneaped.

¥ Anv if bpon the Sondap or holy Dane, the people be negligent to come to the
Communion: Then shall the Wriest earnestly exhorte his parishioners, to vispose
themselfes to the recetuing of the holy communion more diligently, saiving these or
like mordes Onto them.

Were frendes, and pou especially bpon hose soules F
Haue cure and charge, on next, E do tntende by Chods
qrace, to offre to all suche as sbhalbe qodlpe disposed, the
moste comfortable Sacrament of the bodp and bloud of
Christe, to be taken of them, in the remembraunce of His
moste fruitfull and glorious asston: bp the Mhiche passion,
foe Haue obteiqned remission of our sinnes, and be made par-
takers of the kyngdom of Heauen, fhereof fre bee assured
and asserteiqned, pf fee come to the sande Sacrament, fith
Heartie repentaunce for our offences, stedfast faithe in Groddes
mercepe, and earnest minde to obepe Ghoddes fopll, and to

k Perpetuum pvyudovvoy, suum [scilicet proprium quasi pignus amoris, &c.|—
Alex. Ales. [fol. 37. ]

8 The Communion.

appenvix. offende nomore. GéAherefore our Duetie is to come to these

No. I,

Holy misteries, fvith moste Heartie thankes to bee geuen to
almightic G@@PD, for His infinite mereie and benefites qeuen
and bestoiocd bpon bs His onhorthie seruauntes, for Mhom he
hath not onely qeuen bis bodp to Death, and shed His bloude,
but also doth bouchsaue in a Sacrament and Mistery,
to qeue bs bis saned bode and bloud to feede Hpon spirit-
ually. Gbhe whiche Sacrament being so Wiuine and holp
a thing, and so comfortable to them fohiche recetue it foor-
thilpe, and so Vaungerous to them that tovll presume to take
thesame onivorthelp: Mp Duetie fs to exborte pou in the
meane season, to consider the qreatnes of the thing, and to
serche and examine pour ofone consciences, and that not
Inqbtly nor after the maner of dissimulers With GD: wut
as thep tobiche shoulde come to a moste Grodly and Heauenly
Ganket, not to come but in the mariage garment required of
Grovd in scripture: that pou map (so muche as lieth tn pou)
be founde foorihie to come to suche a table. ODhe waies and
meanes therto fs.

First that pou be truly repentaunt of pour former euill
Infe, and that pou confesse With an bnfained hearte to al-
mightie God, poure spnnes and bnkpndnes towardes his
{Plajfestic committed, epther by fopll, Worde, or Dede, intir-
Mitie ov tqnoraunce: and that with infeard sorowe and
teares pou betwaile pour offences, and require of almiadtie
god, mercie and pardon, promising to Him (from the botome
of pour Heartes) thamendment of pour former Ipfe. And
emonges all others, E am commaunded of God, especially to
moue and exborte pou, to reconcile pour selfes to nour
nepahbours, Mhom pou Haue offended, or [oho hath offended
pou, putting out of pour Heartes all hatred and malice
against them, and to be in loue and charitie With all the
fvorlde, and to forgeue other, as pou would that god should
forqeue pou. And pf any man haue Doen Mrong to any
other: let Hom make satisfaccion, and due restitucion of all
landes & goodes, furonafullp taken afoape or witholden,
before He come to Groddes horde, or at the least be in full
mpnde and purpose so to do, assone as he is able, or els
let Hom not come to this holy table, thinking to deceiue
Gov, fuho seeth all mennes Heartes. 4ffor nepther the abso-

The Communion. 9

lucion of the priest, can anp thing auaple them, nor the re- communton
cepuing of this Holy sacrament doth anp thong but increase “YF y5.”
their Damnacion. And pf there bee any of pou, fMhose con- =
science fs troubled and qreued in anp thing, lackpna comforte

or counsaill, let Hom come to me, or to some other discrete

and learned priest, taught in the lave of Ghov, and confesse

and open His sinne and qviefe secretly, that he mate recetue

suche abostlp counsail, aduise, and comfort, that His con-

science mape be releued, and that of bs (as of the {Pinisters

of GOD and of the churche) he map recepue comforte anv
absolucion, to the satisfaccion of big minde, and auopdpng

of all scruple and doubtfulnes: requirpna suche as shalbe
satisfied With a gqenerall confession, not to be offended fith

them that Do bse, to their further satisfpinge, the auriculer

and secrete confession to the ¥riest: nor those also fbiche

thinke nedefull or conuentent, for the quietnes of their ofone
consciences, partieulerlp to open thepr sinnes to the 4riest:

to be offended foith them that are satisfped, with their Humble
confession to GOD, and the generall confession to the churche.

Gut in all thinges to folofe and kepe the rule of charitie,

and euerp man to be satisfped With his ofne conscience, not
judging other mennes mindes or consciences: fohere as he hath

no foarrant of Groddes ford to thesame.

{| Then shall folowe for the @Pflertorp, one or mo, of these Sentences of holy
scripture, to be song whiles the people Dooe offer, or els one of theim to hee saied by
the minister, tmmediatlp! afore the offerpng™.

Let pour light so shine before men, that thep map see mate. s.
pour good fooorkes, and glorify pour farher Which ts in
Heauen.

Dane not bp for pour selues treasure bpon the pearth, matt. 6.
fobere the ruste and mothe dothe corrupte, and fohere theues
breake through and steale: Wut laie op for pour selfes trea-
sures in Heauen, fohere nevther ruste nor mothe dothe corrupt,

& fobere theues do not breake through nor steale.

WAhatsocuer pou foulde that menne shoulde doe Onto pou, matt. 7.
eucn so Do pou Onto them, for this is the lafwe and the
Wrophetes.

' Dum populus offert munera ad ™ Desunt multe harum sententia-

Altare.—Alex. Ales. [fol. 38. ] rum in versione Alesiana.
HICKEs. C

APPENDIX.
NO. I.

Matt. 7.

Luke 19.

1 Cor. 9.

2 Cor. 9.

Gal. 6.

Pekin: Gs

1 Tim. 6.

Heb. 6

10 The Communion.

Sot euerp one that sapeth onto me, lorde, lorde, shall
entre into the kynadome of Heauen, but he that vothe the fill
of mp father Mobhiche is in Heauen.

Bache stode furthe, and saved onto the Lorde: bebholde
Dorde, the halfe of mn qoodes FE geue to the poore, and pf
E haue doen any foronae to ann man, FE restore foure folde.

@eAho goeth a Warfare at any tyme at His ofvne coste?
foho planteth a binefarde, and eateth not of the fruite therot?
@r foho fedethe a flocke, and eateth not of the milke of the
flocke ?

Lf foe Haue sowen onto pou spirituall thinaes, is tt a qreat
matter pf fe shall reape pour fvorldlp thinaes ?

Wooe ve not knoe, that they whiche minister aboute holp
thinges, Inue of the Sacrifice? Then Mbhiche Matte of the
alter, are partakers {ith the alter? euen so hath the lorde
also ordained: that thep fobiche preache the Grospell, shoulde
liue of the Grospell.

We Whiche sofveth litle, shall reape litle, and he that
sofueth plenteously, shall reape plenteously, Wet euerp
manne Doe accordpngae as He ts Disposed in His Hearte, not
qrudapnalp, or of necessitie, for God loueth a chereful
qeuer.

Lct Hom that ts tauahte in the fWoorde, minister bnto hom
that teacheth, in all good thinaes. We not decepucd, GOD ts
not mocked. for fohatsocuer a man solvetiy, that shall be
reape.

@AHile fe Haue tyme, let bs Doe good onto all men,
and specially onto them, fobiche are of the Housholde of
fapth.

Grodlpnes ts queate riches, pf a man be contented fith that
He hath: ffor foe broughte nothyng into the Worlde, neither
mape fe carp anp thing out.

Charge them tohiche are riche in this fworlde, that they be
readp to qeue, and glad to distribute, laping bp in stoare for
themselues a good foundation, against the time to come, that
thep mate attain eternall Ipfe.

GOD is not onriqhteous, that he Mill forgette youre fooorkes
and labor, that procedeth of loue, fobiche loue ve haue shelved
for His names sake, Mohiche haue ministred Onto the sainctes,
and pet Do minister.

The Communion. i

To do good, and to distribute, forget not, for fith suche communion
Sacrifices God is pleaser. w149.

@Ahoso hath this forldes good, and seeth His brother Haue Heb. 13.
nede, and shutteth op his compassion from hom, holo divelleth 1 7°™ >
the loue of Grod in Him?

Greue almose of thy qoodes, and turne neuer thy face from Tobit 4.
any poore man, and then the face of the lord shall not be
turned afvape from thee.

Iee merctfull after thn pofeer: tf thou Haste muche, geue Tovit 4.
plenteougly, pf thou hast litle, do thy diligence gladly to qeue
of that litle, for so gathereste thou thy selfe a good refarde
tn the Date of necessitie.

We that hath pitie bpon the poore, lendeth onto the Word: Prov. 19.
and loke fat de lateth out, it shalbe pated Him agatn.

Blessed be the man that prouideth for the sicke and nevdp, Ps. 41.
the lorde shall deliuer Hom, tn the tyme of trouble.

Where there he Clearkes, thei shall spng one", or manp of the sentences aboue
twritien, accorspng to the length and shortnesse of the tyme, that the people be
offerpng.

En the meane tyme, whples the Clearkes Vo syng the @fertorp, so many as are
Disposed, shall offer to the poore mennes boxe euerp one accordpnae to his habilitie
and charitable mpnde. And at the offeryng daies appopnted, cuerp manne and
woman shall pate to the Curate, the Due and accustomed offerpnacs.

Then so many as shalbee partakers of the holo Communion, shall tarve still in
the quire, or in Some conuentente place nigh the quire, the men on the one side, and
the omen on the other spde. All other (that monde not to receiue the saty holy
Communion) shall Veparte out of the quire, excepte the ministers and Clearkes.

Then shall the minister? take so muche BWreade and Wine, as shall suffice for the
persons appopnted to recetue the holy Communion, laipng the breave opon the
corporas or els in the paten, or in some other comely thong, prepared for that pur=
pose: And putting the wine into the Whalice, or els in some faire or conueniente
cup, prepared for that ose (if the Chalice wil not seruc) puttyng therto? a litle

o Harum et similium sententiarum
ex Thobia, Proverbiis, vel Psalmis, una
aut plures canantur.—Alex. Ales. [ fol.
39.

=f poner [tot hostias calici aut cor-
porali imponet, &c.|— Alex. Ales.
[ibid. ]

p Vide Joh. Lightfooti Hor. Hebraic.
in Matth. cap. xxvi. 27. [‘‘‘Ifhe drinks
wine pure’ and not mingled with
water, ‘he hath performed his duty ;’
but commonly they mingled water with

it; hence when there is mention of
wine in the rubric of the feasts, they
always use the word }}71D, ‘they mingle’
him a cup... The rabbins have a
tradition, over wine which hath not
water mingled with it they do not say
the blessing, ‘Blessed be He that
created the fruit of the vine,’ but
‘Blessed be He that created the fruit
of the tree’... ‘The wise agree with
R. Eleazar, that one ought not to bless
over the cup of blessing, till water be

The Communion.

APPENDIX. pure and cleane tater: And setting both the bread and twpne bpon the Alter :
Then the Wrieste shall sane.

Che Lorde be With pou.

NO. I.

Aunstoere.
And With thy spirite.
WPriest.
Witt bp pour Heartes.
Aunsivere,
Gee lift them bp onto the Worde.
WPriest.
Uct bs qeue thankes to our Worde Chod.
Aunstoere.

Et is mete and right so to do.

The Artest.

Et fs berp mete, tiqhte, and our bounden dutie, that fe
shoulde at all tomes, and in all places, qeue thankes to thee,
@ Lorde, holy father, almiqhtie euerlasting Grod,

q Here shall folome the propre preface, accordyng to the tome (tf there bee
any specially appointed) or els immediatly shall folome. Therfore with
Aungels. &c.

Propre Prefares.

Apon Christmas dave.

Because thou viddeste qeue Gesus Christe, thone onelp
gonne to be borne as this date for 6s, Mho by the
operacion of the Holy qhoste, fas made berp man, of the
substaunce of the Dirgin {Marp His mother, and that

mingled in it.’’’—Lightfoot, Works,
vol. ii. p. 260, fol. London, 1684.] And
in 1 Cor. cap. xi. 25. [‘‘ That cup which

Christ used was mixed with water, if

so be He retained the ordinary custom
of the nation in this matter, which is
not in the least to be doubted, &c.’’—
Ibid., p. 777.] Just. Martyris Apol. i.
pp. 125, 128. Edit. a Joh. Ernesto

Grabe.

Oxonie MDCC. [c. 65. pp.

82, D. 83, A; c. 67. p.83, A. ed. Ben.
quoted above, vol. ii. pp. 105, f, 106,
g.] Ejusdem notas in Irenzi opera
a se edita, lib. v. cap. ii. [quoted above,
vol. ii. p. 106, h.] S. Cyprian. Epist.
lxiii. edit. Oxon. [Ad Cecilium, pp.
104, sqq. Ed. Ben. quoted above, vol.
ii. p. 54, m.] Vide et, Dist. ii. de Conse-
eratione, ec. iimv. [Decreti pars iii.
ap. Corp. Jur. Can., tom. i. |

The Communion. 13

fpithout spotte of sinne, to make 6s cleane from all sinne. COMETS
Therfore. Ke. 1849.

CApon Caster date.

But chieily are Me bounde to prapse thee, for the glorious
resurrection of thy sonne Gesus Christe, our Worde, for
He ts the berp Wascall Lambe, Wohiche foas offered for os, and
Hath taken afwape the spnne of the frorlde, Hho by His death
Hath destroped death, and by Hig rispng to lyfe againe, hath
restored to bs euerlastinge Infe. Therefore. &e.

GApon the Assencion dape.

Through thy moste dere beloucd sonne, FWesus Christe
our Lord, Moho after His moste glorious resurreccion, mant-
festlp appered to all bis disctples, and tn thepr stahte as-
cended bp into Heauen, to prepare a place for 6s, that fobere
He is, thither mighte fe also ascende, and reiqne ith Him
in glory. Gbherfore. Xe.

Apon EAhitsondape.

Throughe Fesus ChHriste our Porde, accordpnae to fohose
moste true prompse, the holy Gihoste came doune this dvape
from Heaven, f&ith a sodatne qveat sounde, as it had been a
mightie fopnde, in the Inkenes of fiery tounques, liqhtpnae
upon the Apostles, to teache them, and to leade them to all
truethe, gebpng them bothe the affte of diberse lanquaaes,
and also boldnes foith feruente seale, constantly to preache the
Grospell onto all nacions, foherebyp foe are brought out of
Darkenes and error, into the cleare light and true knofvledge of
thee, and of thy sonne Sesus Christ. CTherfores. &e.

CApon the feast of the Drinitie.

Lt is berp meete, riqhte, and our bounden duetie, that foe
should at all tomes, and in all places, qgeue thawkes to thee,
@ Horde almightiec, eberlastinge Ghovd, hich arte one Gov,
one Lorde’, not one onelp person, but three persones in one

4 In versione Alesii: Quapropter
profusis gaudiis totus in orbe terrarum
mundus exultat, sed et superne vir-
tutes, atque angelic potestates hym-
num glorie tue concinunt, sine fine
dicentes, Sanctus, Sanctus, &c. [fol.
40. |

© Versio Alesiana sic se habet: Qui
cum unigenito filio tuo, et Spiritu
Sancto unus es Deus, unus es Domi-
nus; non in unius singularitate per-
sone, sed cum Trinitate personarum,
in Unitate substantia. Quod enim de
gloria tua revelante te credimus, hoc

APPENDIX.
NO. I.

14 The Communion.

substaunce: ffor that tobiche foe belevbe of the glory of the
father, thesame fe beleue of the sonne, and of the Dolp
qhoste, feithout any difference, or inequalitie: fbom the
Anaoels, (and Archanaels, and also Cherubin, and Seraphin
Yo praise, neuer ceasing to crp aloud bith one continued boice,
saping, bolp, boln, hol, Xe. *)

After whiche preface shall folome immediatly.

THherfore With Angels and Archanaels, and With al the
Holy companie of Heauen: foe laude and magqnifpe thy glorious
name, euermore prapspng thee, and saptnae:

{ Wolp', holy, holy, Worde Cod of Wostes: Heauen and
earth ave full of thy qlorp: @Psanna tn the Hiqheste. Blessed
is He that commeth in the name of the Lorde: Glory to thee,
@® lorde, in the Hiahest. This the Clearkes shall also syng.

4 When the Clearkes hauc Doen spnavng, then shall the yriest, or Beacon,

turne hom to the people and save.
Let bs prave for the fohole state of Christes churche.

J Then the Ariest turning hum to the Altar», shall save or spng, plainly any
Distinctly, this praver folowing.

Almiahtie and euerlpuyng God, twhiche by thy boln
Apostle haste taught bs to make prapers and supplicacions,
and to geue thankes for all menne: Ge humbly beseche
thee moste merevfullp to reeenue these our prapers: fobiche foe
offre bnto thy Diuine MPlafestie, besechyng thee to inspire
continually the bniuersall churche, foith the spirite of truethe,
bnitie and concorde: And qraunt that all they that doe confesse
thy bolye name, mape aare tn the trueth of thy bolpe orde,
and liue in bnitie and godly loue. Spectallye tore beseche
thee to saue and defende thy seruaunte, LdwMarde our Wynae,
that bnder him fe mane be Godly and quietely qouerned. And
qraunte Onto his fobhole counsaile, and to all that bee put tn

de Filio tuo, hoc de Spiritu Sancto, sine
differentia discretionis sentimus, quem
laudant angeli atque archangeli,
cherubin quoque, et seraphin, qui non
cessant clamare, jugiter una voce di-
centes.—{ Ibid.

s [The words now enclosed in paren-
theses are not in the original Prayer
Books of 1549, which ended with
‘*whom the angels, &c.’’ Hickes has

supplied the concluding words which
were to be added from the Latin Service
previously in use, from which this pre-
face was simply translated; they are
given in full in Ales’ version. ]

t «Chorus’’ premittitur in versione
Alesiana.

u Hee verba nigra linea subducta
notata desunt in versione Alesiana.

The Communion. 15

authoritie bnder hom, that they mane truely and tndifferently
minister fustice, to the punishment of foickednesse and bite, &
to the maintenaunce of Grodves true religion and bertue. Greue
qrace (@ heauenlyp father) to all @ishoppes, Wastors, and
Curates, that they mate bothe by their life and doctrine, set
furthe thy true and liuelp foorde, and rightelp and duelp av-
minister thn bolpe Sacramentes. And to all thy people
qeue thy Heauenlp qrace, that fith meke hearte and due reuer-
ence, they mape Heare and vecefue thy dolp Morde, truelp
serupnae thee in bolpnes and righteousnes, all the dapes
of their Infe. And wore moste Humbly beseche thee of thp
qoodnes (CB Aorde) to coumforte and succoure all them,
fubpeh in this transitory Ipfe bee in trouble, sorofve, neve,
spcknes, or any other aduersitie, And espectallp foe commend
bnto thy mercifull gootnes, thys congreqacton fohpebhe is Here
assembled in thy name, to celebrate the commmemoracion of
the moste glorious Deathe of thy sonne: And Here hoe doe
qeue bnto thee moste High praise, & Heartie thankes, for the
fonderfull grace and bertue, declared in all thy sainctes,
from the beapnninge of the Morlde: And chieily in the glorious
and most blessed birain {Plarp, mother of thy sonne Gesu
Christ our Lord and God, & in the holy Watriarcches, Iro-
phetes, Apostles, and ¥Partirs, Mhose examples (PW Lorde)
and stedfastnes in thy fapthe, and Reping thy bolpe com-
maundementes, qraunte 6s to folofwe. Geéle* commende unto

x G. Forbes. Ep. Edenb. Considera-
tion. Modest. de Purgatorio, Part ii.
cap. 3. § 18, pp. 248, sqq. [ London,
1658.] Sed audiatur Ecclesia Angli-
cana in Rituali sive Libro communium
precum, tempore Edovardi impresso
1549, et latine verso ab Alexandro
Alesio Seoto, S. Theol. Doctore, verba
numero sequente tibi exhibemus Lec-
tor, in administratione Coenez Dom.
§ 19. ‘Commendamus etiam tibi o
Domine, reliquos omnes servos tuos,
qui ex vita hac decesserunt cum signo
fidei, et nune requiescunt in somno
Pacis. Concede illis, quesumus, mise-
ricordiam tuam, et zternam pacem, et
ut in die universalis resurrectionis, nos
et omnes, qui sunt membra mystici
corporis Filii tui, sistamur a dextra
ipsius, ut audiamus illam suavissimam
vocem; Venite ad me benedicti,’ &c.
Kit de sepultura mortuorum. ‘ Deus
cui omnes spiritus mortuorum, et cum

quo omnium electorum anime post
liberationem oneris carnis, feliciter et
in gaudio vivunt; przsta huic famulo
tuo, ut peccata que in hoc mundo
commisit, non imputentur ei; sed ut
superatis portis mortis, et zterne cali-
ginis, semper in regione lucis habitet,
cum Abrahamo, Isaaco, et Jacobo, ubi
nullus luctus, dolor aut meror. Et
cum tremenda dies Judicii advenerit,
fac eum resurgere cum omnibus justis
et electis,’ &c. Hasce preces antiquis-
simas et piissimas Buceri aliorumque
monitu et consilio, postea przsules
Ecclesia Anglicanz expunxere; aut
in aliam nescio quam formam, hodier-
nam novitatem redolentem convertere.
Isaacus Casaubonus in responsione ad
Epistolam Card. Perronii nomine sere-
nissimi M. Britanniz Regis scripta,
affirmat hune ritum orandi pro mortuis
Ecclesiam Anglicanam, “et si non
damnet in primis seculis, hodie tamen

COMMUNION
SERVICE,
1549.

APPENDIX.
NO. I.

The Communion.

thy mercpe (CP Word) all other thy seruauntes, Wbhiche are
Departed Hence from os, foith the siqne of fapth, and nofoe do

sibi non putare retinendum,’ &c.
p- 54, &c. [Lond. 1611.] Sed utinam
(ut nihil detraham laudibus serenissimi
et nunquam satis laudati Principis
Jacobi sexti, qui cum nihil haberet
prius et antiquius pacis et concordize
piz inter Christianas Eeclesias pro-
curande studio, nunquam tamen per
morosa et rixosa multorum Theolo-
gastrarum ingenia id consequi aut
effectum dare potuit quod maxime
voluit) Ecclesia Anglicana, que sin-
gularem alioqui meretur laudem; ob
magnam multis aliis in rebus, et si
forte non paris momenti, moderationem
adhibitam, universalis Ecclesiz anti-
quissime consuetudini hoe in negotio,
ut et in aliis nonnullis, sese potius con-
formasset ; quam ob errores, et abusus,
qui paulatim irrepserant postea, in-
genti cum aliorum fere omnium Chris-
tianorum scandalo simpliciter reje-
cisset, et penitus sustulisset, § 20. Ex
orationibus autem, et oblationibus pro
mortuis apud Patres Purgatorium Ro-
manorum minime probari posse lucu-
lentissime demonstrarunt infiniti viri
doctissimi, Grzci, Romanenses, Pro-
testantes.

The Prayer which Dr. Forbes cites
in Latin, out of the Office of Burial, is
thus in English.

“ Let us pray.

O Lord, with whom do live the
spirits of them that be dead, and in
whom the souls of them that be
elected, after they be delivered from
the burden of the flesh, be in joy and
felicity: grant unto this Thy servant,
that the sins which he committed in
this world be not imputed unto him;
but that he, escaping the gates of hell,
and pains of eternal darkness, may
ever dwell in the region of light, with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the
place where is no weeping, sorrow, nor
heaviness: and when that dreadful day
of the general resurrection shall come,
make him to rise also with the just
and righteous, and receive this body
again to glory, then made pure and
incorruptible. Set him on the right
hand of Thy Son Jesus Christ, among
Thy holy and elect, that then he may
hear with them those most sweet and
comfortable words, Come to Me, ye
blessed of My Father, possess the king-
dom which hath been prepared for you
from the beginning of the world.
Grant this, we beseech Thee, O merci-

ful Father, through Jesus Christ, our
Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.”’

To which may be added the Collect
at the celebration of the Holy Com-
munion of the Burial of the Dead, in
the same book.

‘*O merciful God, the Father of our
Lord Jesu Christ, who is the Resurrec-
tion and the Life; in whom whoso-
ever believeth, shall live though he
die; and whosoever liveth and be-
lieveth in Him shall not die eternally:
who also hath taught us (by His holy
Apostle Paul) not to be sorry, as men
without hope, for them that sleep in
Him: we meekly beseech Thee (O
Father) to raise us from the death of
sin, unto the life of righteousness; that
when we shall depart this life, we may
sleep in Him, (as our hope is this our
brother doth,) and at the general resur-
rection in the last day, both we and
this our brother departed, receiving
again our bodies, and rising again in
Thy most gracious favour, may with
all Thine elect saints obtain eternal
joy. Grant this, O Lord God, by the
means of our advocate Jesus Christ,
which with Thee, and the Holy Ghost,
liveth and reigneth one God for ever.
Amen.”

Herb. Thorndyke’s Weights and
Measures, chap. xxii. p. 159. ‘‘ There
is the same ground to believe the Com-
munion of saints, in the prayers which
those that depart in the highest favour
with God make for us, in the prayers
which we make for those that depart
in the lowest degree of favour with
God, that there is for the common
Christianity; namely, the Scriptures
interpreted by the perpetual practice
of God’s Church. Therefore there is
ground enough for the faith of all
Christians, that those prayers are ac-
cepted, which desire God to hear the
saints for us, to send the deceased in
Christ rest and peace, and light and
refreshment, and a good trial at the
day of judgment, and accomplishment
of happiness after the same. And,
seeing the abating of the first form
under Edward VI. hath. wrought no
effect, but to give them that desired it
an appetite to root up the whole; what
thanks can we render to God for
escaping so great a danger, but by
sticking firm to a rule that will stick
firm to us, and carry us through any
dispute in religion, and land us in the

The Communion. 17

reste in the slepe of peace: Grraunte Hnto them, foe beseche commenion
thee, thy merep, and everlastyng peace, and that at the date “su.”
of the generall resurrecefon, foe and all they Mobnche bee of the
misticall bodp of thy sonne, mape altogether bee set on bis

tight Hand, and hHeare that bis most fonful botce: Come

onto me, @ pe that be blessed of mp father, and possesse

the kingdome, fohiche is prepared for pou, from the beannning

of the forlde: Graunte this, @ father, for Fesus Christes

sake, our onelp mediatour and aduocate.

@ God Heauenly father, fWbhiche of thy tender mercie,
diddeste geue thine only sonne Gesu Christ, to suffer
Veathe upon the crosse for our redvempeion, ho made there
(bp bis one oblacion once offered) a full, perfect, and suffi-
ciente sacrifpce, oblacion, and satisfaccion, for the sinnes of
the fobole fvorlde, and did institute, and in His Holp Girhospell
commaunde 6s, to celebrate a perpetuall memorpe, of that
His precious deathe, ontpll his comming agqaine: Weare bs
(o mercifull father) fe beseche thee: and with thy bolp
spirite and foorde bouchsafe to blessey and sanoktifie these
thy anftes, and creatures of breade and fupne, that thep mane
be Onto 68 the bodpe and bloud of thy moste derely beloued
sonne FFesus Christe. Aho in thesame npahte were the
that be foas betraped: tooke breade, and fohen he eae
Had blessed, and qeuen thankes: He brake it, and breay into
qaue it to bys disciples, saipinge: Dake, eate, this Ds barves.
ig mp bodve fohiche is qeuen for pou: do this in remembraunce
of me.

Ltkeopse after supper he toke the cuppe, and Mohen he
had geuen thankes, He gaue it to them, Satpyind: were she
Orprke pe all of this, for this is mp bloude of the priest shall
nefwoe Testament, wobyehe is shed for pou and for Cuype int
manp, for remission of sinnes: Yo this as oft ag Dis bandes.
pou shall drinke it, in remembdraunce of me.

haven of a quiet conscience; what Measures: that is the present state of
troubles soever we may pass through, religion weighed inthe balance, and
in maintaining, that the reformation of | measured by the standard of the sanc-
the Church will never be according to tuary, according to the opinion of
the rule which it ought to follow, till Herbert Thorndike. London, 1662.” ]
it cleave to the Catholic Church of y Signa erucis non posuit in ver-
Christ in this particular.’’ [The full sione sua Alex. Ales.

title of this work is, “Just Weights and

HICKES. D

APPENDIX.
NO. I,

18 The Communion.

FJ These wordes before rehersed are to be saicy, turning still to the Altar’,
without anp eleuacion, or shewming the Sacrament to the people.

CAherefore, CD Lorde and Heauenlp father, accordpng to
the Instptucpon of thy Derely beloued sonne, our sautoure
Hesu Christe, Me thy Humble seruauntes doe celebrate, and
make Here before thy Diuine (PMafjestic, With these thy holy
qiftes, the memorpall whyebe thy sonne hath filled os to
make: Hauing in remembraunce His blessed passion, miahtie
resurrection, and glorious ascencion, renderpnae bnto thee
moste Heartpe thankes, for the innumerable benefptes procured
buto 6s bp thesame, entperely despronae thy fatherly gqood-
nes, mercifully to accepte thns our Sacrifice of praise and
thankes qeuinge: mogte Humblpe besechinge thee to qraunte,
that by the merites and deathe of thy sonne Gesus Christ,
and through faith in bis bloud, fee and all thy hole
church, map obtetqne remission of our sinnes, and al other
benefites of Dis passion. And Here fuee offre and present
unto thee (D Lord) oure selfe, oure souleg, and bodies, to
be a reasonable, holy, and liuelp sacrifice unto thee: humbly
besechpng thee, that fohosoeuer shalbee partakers of thps
Holy Communion, mave fWorthelp receiue the moste precious
bodp and bloude of thy sonne Fesus Christe: and bee ful-
filled foith thy qrace and heauenlp benediction, and made one
bodpe With thy sonne Fesu Christe, that he mapve dhoell in
them, and thep in bom. And although Me be oniorthy
(through our manpfolde spnnes) to offre unto thee any Sacrt-
fice: ¥et fue beseche thee to accepte this our bounden duetie
and service, and commaunde these our prapers and supplica-
cions, bp the {Ministery of thy holy Anaels, to be brought bp
into thy Holy Gabernacle before the spaht of thy diutne
majestic: not Waping our merites, but pardoning our of-
fences, through Christe our Lorde, by Whom, and with
fohom, tn the bnitie of the boly Gibost: all honour and
glory, be unto thee, @ father almightie, fworld without
ende, Amen.

Let us prane.

As our Sautour Christe, hath commaunded and taught os,
fe are bolde to save. ur father \biche art in Heauen,

* Hee verba subducta nigra linea notata pretereuntur in versione Alesiana.

The Communion. 19

Halofeed be thy name. Thy kyngdome come. Why fopll be communton
doen in pearth, as it 8 in Heaven. Gieue us this Dape our “1549.”
danly breade, And forqeue us our trespaces, as fore forqeue — z
them that trespasse against bs. And leade us not into
temptation,

The Aunstoere *.

But Veliuer us from eutll. Amen.
Then shall the priest save.
Che peace of the Worde be alfvape fith pou.
The Clearkes.
And with thy sptrite.
The Priest.

Christ our Pascal lambe is offred Hp for bs, once for al,
fobhen he bare our sinnes on His bodp bpon the crosse, for
He is the berp lambe of Giod, that taketh afoan the stnnes
of the fworlde: foherfore let bs kepe a fopfull and holy feast
with the Lorde.

Here the prieste shall turne hom toMarde those that come to the holp
Communion, anv shall save.

¥ou that do truely and earnestly repent pou of pour
spnnes to almigqhtic Grod, and be in loue and charitie fuith
pour nevahbours, and entende to leade a neloe Itfe, folofina
the commaundementes of God, and foalkyng from hHeneefurth
in bis Holy Mapes: Drake neve and take this holy Sacrament
to pour comforte, make pour Humble confession to almtabtte
Gov, and to his holy churche here gathered together tn His
name, mnekelp knelpng upon pour knees.

Then shall this generall Confession hee made, in the name of all those that are
minded to recepue the holy Communion, epther Hy one of them, or els by one of the
ministers, or bp the JBrieste Homselfe, all kneling humbly opon their Rnees«

Almiaghtic GOD, fatherof oure Lorde Fesus Christ, maker
of all thinges, judge of all menne, foe knofolege & beaple
our manifold sinnes and fonckednes, fohiche foe from tyme to
tyme, most qreuouslpy Haue committed, by thoughte, Moorde and
Dede, agapnste thy Diuine majestic, prouokpyng moost fustelp

4 Chorus respondeat.—Alex. Ales.
» Conversus ad confitentes.—Alex. Ales.

APPENDIX,
NO. I.

20 The Communion.

thy forath and indiqnacion agqainste 6s: foe Do earnestly re-
pent, and be hartelp sorp for these oure misdoinaes, the re-
mentvbraunce of them is qreuous bnto bs, the burthen of them
is intollerable: Haue mercie bpon bs, Haue mereie bpon bs,
moste mereifull father, for thy sonne our Lorde Fesus
ChHristes sake, forqeue os all that is past, and qraunt that foe
map euer Hereafter, serue and please thee in nefones of life,
to the Honour and qlorp of thn name: Through Hesus Christe
our Lorde.

Then shall the Wrieste stanve bp, and turning Homselfe to the people, sap thus,

Alinightie GPW our Heauenly father, Who of his qreat
mercte, Hath prompsed forgqeuenesse of sprnes to all them,
tubiche fith heartpe repentaunce and true favth turne onto
Hom: Haue merep bpon pou, pardon and deliuer pou from all
pour sinnes, confirme and strengthen pou tn all qgoodnes, and
bring pou to everlasting Ipie: through Gesus Christ our
Lord. Amen.

Then shall the YPriest also save.

Weare what coumfortable Moordes our sauiour Christe
sapeth, to all that truely turne to Dim.

Come bnto me all that trauel and bee Heaup laden, and I
shal refreshe pou. Bo rod loued the world that he qaue his
onelp beqotten sonne, to the ende that all that beleue in Hom,
spoulde not perishe, but haue Ipfe euerlastyna.

Weare also fohat sainct Waule saneth.

This is a true saptna, and fvorthie of all men to be re-
cepued, that Gesus Christe came into this forlde to saue
strners.

Weare also tohat sainet Bohn sateth.

it any man sinne, we Haue an aduocate foith the father,
Pesus Christe the righteous, and he ts the propictacton for
our stnnes.

Then shall the Yrieste, turning Hom to gots boord‘, knele Doton, and save in
the name of all them, that shall recepue the Communion, this praper folowing.

Gale Doe not presume to come to this thy table (o mercifull

The Communion. 21

lorde) trustinge in our ofune righteousnes, but in thy manifold comontoy
and aveat mercies: foe be not fooorthie so muche as to gather “1549.”
bp the cromes onder thp table, but thou art the same lorde

Whose propertic fs alwapes to haue mercie: Grraunte bs there-

fore (qvacious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne

Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud in these holy is-

tevies, that fee mane continually diuell in Hom, and he in bs,

that oure spnful bodpes man bee made cleane by His body, and

our soules foashed through bis most prectous blouy. Amen.

{ Then shall the Wrieste, firste recetue the Communion tn both kindes himselfe,
and next Deliver it to other fPinisters, pf any be there present (that they map bee
readp to Helpe the chiefe (Minister) and after to the people.

¥ And when he Velivereth the Sacrament of the body of Christ, he shall sape
to euerp one these toordes.

The borp of our PWorde Yesus Christ Mhich Mas qeuen
for thee, preserue thy bodpe and soule bnto euerlastyng lyfe.

Anv the (Minister veliuering the Sacrament of the bloud, and qeuing cuerp one
to Urinke once and no mare, shall sape.

The hloud of our Lord HYesus Christe Mhiche fas shed for
thee, preserue thp bodpe and soule unto euerlastinge Ife.

if there be a Beacon or other Apriest, then shall he folowe with the Chalice: anv
as the priest ministreth the Sacrament of the bodp, so shal he (for more expedicion)
minister the Sacrament of the blouy, tn fourme before toritten.

En the Communion tome the Clearkes shall synq.

tt. © lambe of god that takeste afvape the spnnes of the
fvorlde : Haue mercie upon bs.

@® lambe of gov that takeste aape the spnnes of the fvorlde :
qraunt 6s thy peace.

Beginning so soone as the ApPriest Voeth receiue the holy Communion: anv

when the Communion is enved, then shal the Clarkes syng the post Com-=
munion 4,

{ Sentences of holp scripture, to be say or song every vate one, after the holp
Communion, called the post Communion.

If anp man foill folofoe me, let him forsake Homselfe, and Matt. 16.
take up Dis crosse and folofe me.

‘ Nihil horum in versione Alesii, cui sufficere visum est solum dicere ; “ post
Communionem canatur.”’

APPENDIX.

Luke 12.

John 4.

John 5.

John 8.

John 12.

John 14.

John 14,

John 15.

John 16.

John 15.

Rom. 8.

Rom. 13.

22 The Communion.

WAhosocuer shall indure unto thende, he shalbe saucvd.

Wransed be the Lorde god of Esracll, for he hath hispted
and revemed his people: therefore let us serue Hym all the
Vapes of our life, in Holines and riqhteousnes accepted before
dpm.

Wappie are those seruauntes, fMHhome the Lorde (hen He
cummeth) shall fpnde fakpna.

45e ve readye, for the sonne of manne fopll come, at an
Hower fohew ve thinke not.

The seruaunte that knofeeth hos maisters fpll, and hath
not prepared Himselfe, nepther hath doen accordpnae to his
fill, shalbe beaten With manp stripes.

The holure cummeth and nolo it ts, Mhen true Woorshippers
shall fooorship the father in spirtte and truethe.

Beholve, thou art made fohole, sinne no more, leste anv
fourse thing Happen bnto thee.

LE ve shall continue in mp forde, then are pe mp berp Vis-
ciples, and pe shall knofve the tructh, and the trueth shall
make pou free.

While ve Haue liqhte, beleue on the Inadt, that pe map be
the children of Itabt:.

We that hath mp commaundementes, and kepeth them, the
same is be that loueth me.

Lf any man loue me, be fill Repe mp fooorde, and mp
father till loue bom, and foe fill come unto Hpm, and diuell
foith him.

Ef pe shal hyde in me, and mp fvoorde shal abpde in pou,
pe shall aske fobat pe foill, and it shall bee doen to pou.

Werein is mp father glorified, that ne beare muche fruite,
and become mp disciples.

This is mp commaundement, that pou loue together, as T
Hhaue loued pou.

Lf Grod be on our spde, ho can be against bs? Mbhiche ow
not spare His ofne sonne, but qaue Hy for bs all.

@AHo shall lap any thing to the charge of Giroddes
chosen’? it is G@D that fustifpeth, who ts he that can
condemne ?

The nvahte is passed, and the Daye is at Hande, let bs

© Que dehine sequuntur omnia pre- sententie in Evangelio, et Epistolis
tereuntur ab Alesio. [‘ Et similes Pauli hac ascribi possunt.” fol. 43. ]

The Communion. 23

therfore caste afvape the dedes of Darkenes, and put on the communion
armour of light. iodo
Christe Fesus ts made of GBD, onto bs, Wisedome, and 1 Cor. 1.
righteousnes, and sanctifping, and redvempeton, that (accovdpng
as it is foritten) be WHiche refoneeth shoulde refopee tn the
Lorde.
wAnohe pe not that ve are the temple of GOD, and that 1 Cor. 3.
the spirite of Gh@DD dwuelleth in pou? pf anv manne defile
the temple of GOD, him shall Grod destroy.
¥e are derelp bought, therfore qlovifte Grod in pour bodies, 1 Cor. 6.
and ti pour sptrites, for they belong to Grov.
Ie pou folofvers of Grod as deare children, and foalke tn Eph. 5.
loue, cuen as Dhriste loucd bs, and qaue Hyomselfe for bs an
offerpng and a Sacrifice of a sfuete sauoure to Crov.

Then the Priest shall geue thankes to God, in the name of all them that haue
communicated, tuning hom first to the people‘, and saving.

The Horde be With pou.
Ohe Aunswere,

And With thy spirite.
The Wriest.

Let bs prape.

Almightie and euerlpupnae GPW, fee moste Hartelp
thanke thee, for that thou hast bouchsafed to feede 63 in these
holy (Bisteries, Mith the spivituall foode of the moste precious
bop & bloude of thy sonne, our sautour Gesus Christ, and
hast agsured Os (uely recepuing the same) of thy fauour and
qoodnes toward bs, and that foe be berp membres incorporate
in thy {#istical bodie, MHich is the blessed companne of all
faithfull people: and hepreg throuahe Hope, of thy cuerlastpnae
Ringdome, by the merites of the moste precious deathe and
passion, of thn Deare sonne. Gee therefore moste Humblp
beseche thee, @ Heauenlp father, so to assiste bs Mpth thy
grace, that fe may continue in that holy felowship, and doe
all suche qood fvoorkes, as thou haste prepared for bs to falke
in: through Fesus Christe our Lord, to Mhom with thee,

‘ Hic nihil amplius in versione Alesii, quam “tune sacerdos conversus ad
populum orabit.’’—[ Fol. 4:3. |

APPENDIX,
NO. I.

24 The Communion.

and the holy qoste, bee all Honour and aglorpe, toorlde Mithout
enve.

Then the Prteste turning hom to the people, shall let them Depart with this blessing.

The peace of GOD (bich passeth all onderstandpng)
kepe pour Heartes and mindes in the knofvledae and loue of
GOD, and of his sonne Fesus Christ our low. And the
blessing of Grod almiahtic, the father, the sonne, & the bolp
gost, be emonages pou, and remapne ith pou alway.

Then the people shall aunswoere.
Amen.

WAhere there are no clearkes, there the Wriest shall save all thonges appointed
here for them to spng&.

Then the holy Communion is celebrate, on the torkeVape, or in private hotwses :
Then map be omitten, the Gloria in excelsis, the Creve, the Homely, and the
Exhortacton, beginning.

Wearelp beloucd. &e.

4 Wollectes to be saved after the Piertory, when there is no Communt:n,
every suche Dav one.

Assist us mercifully, @ Lord, in these our supplicacions
and prapers, and dispose the May of thy seruauntes, toward
the attainement of cucrlasting saluacion: that emonae all
the chaunges and chaunces of this mortall life, thet map euer
be defended by thy moste gracious and readpe Helpe: throughe
Christe our Lorde. Amen.

®D Almiahtic Lorde and euerlpupna GOD, bouchesafe, tue
beseche thee, to direct, sanctifpe, and qouerne, bothe our Heartes
and bodies, in the Manes of thy lates, and in the fwoorkes of
thy commaundementes: that through thn most miadtie pro-
teccion, both Here and euer, fue map be preserued in body and
soule: Trough our Worde and sautour Gesus Christe.
Amen.

Giraunt te beseche thee almtabtie qod, that the Mordes Mhiche
fee haue Hearde this dave With our outfoarde eares, map throughe
thy qrace, bee $0 qrafted infoardlp in our Heartes, that they map

¢ Ubi non sunt cantores.—A lesius.

The Communion. 95

brpng foorth in 63, the fruite of good Ipupnge, to the Honoure se cat a

anv pranse of thy name: Through GYesus Christ our Lorde. 1549.
Amen,

Areuente bs, CD Lorde, in all our dotnages, Moith thy moste
qracious fauoure, and further us fith thy continuall belpe,
that in al our fWorkes begonne, continued, and ended in thee:
foe map glorifpe thy bolp name, and finally by thy merep
obteine euerlasting Ipfe: Dhrough. Ke.

Almightie God, the fountapne of all foistome, Mhvche knotvest
our necessities before fe aske, and our iqnoraunce in asking:
foe beseche thee to Haue compassion bpon our infirmities, and
those thinges Mohiche for our unkooorthines foe Dare not, and
for our blpndnes foe cannot aske, bouchsaue to qeue bs for the
fooorthines of thy sonne Gesu Christe our Lorde. Amen.

Almiahtie gov, Mhiche Haste promised to heare the peticions
of them that aske in thy sonnes name, foe beseche thee merct-
fully to incline thone eares to os that baue made nofoe our
prapers and supplicactons unto thee: and qraunte that those
thinges Which we haue faithfullve asked accordpng to thy will,
mape effectually be obtepned to the reliefe of oure necessitve, and
to the settpng foorth of thy glorie: Throughe GYesus Christe
our Lorde.

Sfor vapne.

® Gov heavenly father, whiche by thy sonne Fesu Christ,
Haste promised to all them that seke thy kingdom, and the
righteousnes therof, al thinaes necessarp to the bodelp susten-
aunte: send us (fe begeche thee) in thng our necessitie, suche
Moderate rapne and showers, that foe mate recetue the fruites
of the earth, to our comforte and to thy Honor: Through
Hesus Christ our Lorde.

for fapre foether.

@ Lorde Gov, Mhiche for the sinne of manne, didst once
Drofone all the forlde, excepte etaht persons, and afterarde of
thy quveat mercie, didste promise neuer to Destrop it so agapn:
fue humbly beseche thee, that although we for oure iniquities

HICKES, E

APPENDIX.
NO. IL.

26 The Communion.

Haue foorthelpe deserucd this plaque of rapne and haters, pet
bpon our true repentaunce, thou foilt sende us suche foether
fuherby foe mane receive the fruites of the earthe in Due seagon,
anv learne bothe by thy punishment to amende our Itues, and
bp the qrauntinge of our peticion, to qeue thee prapse and
glorpe: Through Fesu Christ our Lorde.

{ Apon wednesdaies and fryvaies, the Englishe Letanie shalbe sated or song
in all places, after suche forme as is appovnted by the kynges majesties Eniunc=
cions: @r as fs or shall be otherwise appownted by his highnes. And thoughe
there be none to communicate tovth the Wrieste, vet these Vanes (after the Letany
ender) the Irieste shall put bpon him a plain Albe or surplesse, with a cope, and
saic all thinges at the Altare® (appopnted to bee savde at the celebracion of the
Iordes supper) ontill after the offertorn. And then shall ade one or two of the
Collectes afore written, as occasion shall serue bo hys Viserecion. And then
turning him to the people shall let them Departe with the accustomed blessing.

Any the same order shal be osed all other Dates, whensocuer the people be
customably assembled to prave in the church, and none Disposed to communicate
with the 4Prieste!.

Lpkewvse in Chappelles annexed, and all other places, there shalbe no cele=
bracion of the Lorves supper, excepte there be some to communicate with the priest.
Anv in suche Chappelles annexed where the people hath not been accustomed to pay
anp holy tread, there thep must either make some charitable provision for the
berpng of the charges of the Communion, or els (for recenupng of thesame) resorte
to their parishe Churche.

For avovdyng of all matters and occasion of viscencion, it is mete that the
breay* prepared for the Communion, be made through all this realme, after one
sorte and fashion: that is to sav Snleauened', and rounde, as it was afore, but
without all maner of printe, and some thing more larger and thicker then tt was, so

h Prezeteriit hee in versione sua Al.
Alesius.

i Hane etiam Rubricam integram
preteriit.

k Hostia —A. Ales. [fol. 44. ]

1 Ecclesia reformata Tigurina in
azymis conficit, utentes tamen fermen-
tatonon damnat. Orientales, exceptis
Maronibus et Armeniis, fermentato in
sacra Coena semper usi sunt: Latini
vero ante 800 plus minus annos soliti
sunt panem azymum offerre, Vide
Card. Bonz rerum Liturg., lib. i. cap.
xxiii. [tom. ii. pp. 172, sqq.] et Jacobi
Sirmundi Disquisitionem de Azymo,
ubi sic preloquitur. ‘“Szpe mirari
subiit qui factum sit, ut in Eucharistize
Sacramento, quod ex pane vinoque
constat, cum de vino dubitet nemo,

quin verum, et ex uvis expressum esse
debeat, quia id antiqui canones docent;
de altera parte, quam panem simpli-
citer canones vocant, aliud potuerint
quam germanum atque usitatum pa-
nem interpretari. Sed hominibus nimi-
rum, qui sola in altari azyma contueri,
sola in scholis et exedris audire azyma
solerent, difficile fuerit de superioribus
temporibus aliud suspicari quam de
suis. Mihi vero etsi consultissimo ad
azyma transiisse Latinam Ecclesiam
non ambigo, serius tamen hoe egisse
multisque antea seculis fermentato
usam esse perspicue adeo demonstrasse
hic libellus videtur, ut de tua, Lector,
zquiorumque omnium approbatione
non diffidam.” [Jac. Sirmondi Opera,
tom. iv. p. 348. Venet. 1728. ]

The Communion. 7

that it map be aptly veuldey in Diuers pieces: and euerp one shalbe Veulded in communtox
tivo pieces, at the Ieaste, or more, by the discrecion of the minister, and so vis- “YEYy
tributed. And men must not thinke lesse to be receiued in parte, then in the

tohole, Hut in eche of them the whole body of our saufoure Fesu Christe.

And forsomuche as the pBastours and Curates™ within this realme, shall con=
tinuallp fynde at their costes and charges in their cures, sufficient bread and wine
for the Holo Communion (as oft as thetr Warishioners shalbe wisposed for ther
spirttuall comforte to receiue thesame) it is therfore ordrey, that in recompence
of such costes and charges, the Yarishioners of euery 4Barishe shall offre euerp
Sonvay, at the tyme of the Of€ertory, the iust balour and proce of the holv lofe
(with all suche manev, and other thynges as tere wont to be offered with thesame)
to the use of their Jastours and Curates, and that in suche ordre and course, as
thep were Monte to fonde and pap the saved holy lofe.

Also that the recepuing of the Sacramente of the blessed body anv bloud of
Christ, may be moste aareable to the institucion therof, and to the osage of the
primatiue Churche: En all Cathedrall and Colleqtate Churches, there shal altoaves
some Communicate with the priest that ministreth. And that thesame map be
also observed eucry where abrode in the countrep: Some one at the least of that
house in euerp parvshe, ta whom by course after the ortpnaunce Herein mave, tt
appertepneth to offer for the charges of the Communion, or some other whom then
shall prouvde to offre for them, shal receive the holy Communion with the priest:
the twohich mane bee the better Done, for that they knowme before, when thepr course
commeth, and map therfore vispose themselfes to the worthy recevuing of the Sacra=
mente. Anvd with him or them who Vocth so offre the charges of the Communion:
all other, who be then Godly disposed therunto, shall Iwkewise receiue the Com=
munion. And bp this meanes the (Minister hauyng alsoaves some to communt=
tate with him, map accordingly solempnise so high and holy misteries, with al
the suffrages and Due ordre appointed for thesame. And the priest on the twoeke
Dap, shal forbeare to celebrate the Communion, excepte he haue some that will
communicate with him.

Furthermore, euery man and woman to be bound to heare and be at the divine
serbice, in the yarishe Churche where they be resident, and there with Devout
praver, or Grodlve silence and meVitacion, to occupy themselues. There to pay
their Yueties, to communicate once tn the peare at the least, and there to recepue, and
take all other Sacramentes anv rites, in this booke appopnted. And whosoever
willingly bpon no fust cause, voeth absent themselfes, or Doeth ongodly in the
WParishe churche occupy themselucs: opon profte therof, by the Lcclestasticall latwes
of the Realme, to bee excommunicate, or suffre other punishement, as shal to the
Lcclestastical judge (accordyng to his discrecion) seme conuentent.

And although it bee reay in aunciente writers, that the people mann peares past,
receiued at the priestes hanvdes, the Sacrament of the body of Christ in thevr otmne
handes, and no commaundement of Christ to the contrary: -¥et forasmuche as thep
many tomes conuepaher whesame secretelve atwave, kept it with them, and diberslp

m™ Parochi—Al. Ales. ; qui, que subsequuntur omnia in compendium redegit.
[ Ibid. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. I.

28 The Communion.

abused it to supersticion and wickeynes: lest ann suche thing hereafter shouly be
attempted, and that an oniformitic might be used, throughout the whole Wealme: it
ts thought conuentent the people commontp receiue the Sacrament of Christes body,
in their mouthes, at the 4Briestes hanve®.

" “Sacram Communionem antiquo pp. 368, sqq.] ‘‘ Quando vero cceperit
ritu non ore excipi solitam esse, sed in os immitti,’’ sicut in Ecclesia tum
manu, et a suscipiente ori reverenter, Greca, tum Latina mos ante multos
admoveri’’? Grecorum, et Latinorum annos fuit, ‘‘incertum”’ esse dicit.—
patrum testimoniis probat Card. Bona [Ibid., § 7. p. 392. ]

Rerum Liturg., lib. ii. cap. xvii. [§ 3.

A-P-P EN Dar-X,

No. 2.

THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, OR HOLY COM-
MUNION, AS IT IS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, AND ADMINISTRA=
TION OF THE SACRAMENTS, AND OTHER PARTS OF DIVINE SERVICE;
PRINTED AT EDINBURG, FOR THE USE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND,
MDCXXXVII.

So many as intend to bee partakers of the holy Communion, shall
signifie their names to the Presbyter or Curate over night, or else in
the Morning afore the beginning of Morning prayer, or immediatly
after.

And if any of those bee an open and notorious evil liver, so that
the Church by him is offended, or have done any wrong to his neigh-
bours by word or deed: the Presbyter or Curate having knowledge
thereof, shall call him, and advertise him, in any wise not to presume
to come to the Lords Table, untill he have openly declared himself
to have truely repented and amended his former naughty life, that the
Church may thereby bee satisfied, which afore was offended, and that
he haye recompensed the parties whom he hath done wrong unto, or
at the least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, ass oone as
he conveniently may.

The same order shall the Presbyter or Curate use with those
betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne, not suffer-
ing them to be partakers of the Lords Table, untill he know them
to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance, be con-
tent to forgive from the bottome of his heart all that the other hath
trespassed against him, and to make amends for that he himself hath
offended, and the other party will not be perswaded to a godly unity,
but remaine still in his frowardnesse and malice: the Presbyter or
Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy
Communion, and not him that is obstinate.

The holy Table having at the Communion time a Carpet, and a
faire white linen cloth upon it, with other decent furniture, meet for
the high mysteries there to be celebrated, shall stand at the upper-
most part of the Chancell or Church, where the Presbyter standing

APPENDIX,

NO. IL.

30 The Communion.

at the north-side or end thereof, shall say the Lords Prayer, with
this Collect following for due preparation.

OUR Father, Ke.

Almiahty God, unto fHhom all hearts be open, &e.

“| Then shall the Presbyter, turning to the people, rehearse dis-
tinctly all the Ten CommanpEeMENtTsS: The people all the while
kneeling, and asking God mercy for the transgression of every duty
therein; either according to the letter, or to the mysticall importance
of the said Commandement.

GED spake these Words and said, Xe.

| Then shall follow one of these two Collects for the King, and
the Collect of the day, the Presbyter standing up, and saying,

{ Let us pray.

Almighty Grod, hose kingdome is eberlasting, and poker
infinite, Habe mercy upon thy holy Catholike Church, and
in this particular Church in fohich fee live so rule the Heart
of thy chosen serbant CHARLES our Ling and Gobernour,
that be (Rnofing fMohose minister He ts) map abobe all things
seck thy honour and glory, and that foee dis subjects (Quel
considering fohose authority Hee Hath) map faithfully serbe,
Honour, and humbly oben Him, in thee, and for thee, according
to thy blessed Mord and ordinance, through FYesus Christ our
Lord, Who with thee and the Holy Crhost libeth and reiqneth,
eber one God fvorld fvithout end. Amen.

Almiahty and eberlasting Grod, fue be taught by thy holv
foord, that the hearts of Wings, Ne.

4 Immediatly after the Collects, the Presbyter shall read the
Fpistle, saying thus: The Epistle written in the Chapter
of at the berge. And when he hath done, he shall
say: Were endeth the Lpistle. And the Epistle ended, the Gospel
shall bee read, the Presbyter saying: The Holy Gospel is twritten in
the Chapter of at the berse. And then
the people all standing up shall say: Glory be to thee, © Lord. At
the end of the Gospel, the Presbyter shall say: So endeth the holy
Gospel. And the people shall answer; Thanks be to thee, @ Lord.

The Communion. ok

And the Epistle and Gospel being ended, shall be said or sung this scorrisn

COMMUNION
Creed, all still reverently standing up. ainsevacines

1637.
E @Weleebe in one Crod the fFather Almtahty, maker of
Weaben and Earth, and of all things bisible, Ke.

After the Creede, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the
Homilies which shall hereafter be set forth by common authority.

After such Sermon, Homily, or Exhortation, the Presbyter or
Curate shall declare unto the people whether there bee any Holy-
dayes, or Fasting-dayes the week following, and earnestly exhort
them to remember the poore, saying (for the offertory) one or moe
of these sentences following, as hee thinketh most convenient by his
discretion, according to the length, or shortnesse of the time that the
people are offering.

And tn processe of time it came to passe, that Cain brought Gen. 4. 3.
of the fruit of the qround an offring unto the Lord: and Abel,

He also brought of the firstlings of His flock, and of the fat
thereof. And the Word had respect unto Abel, and to His
offting: but unto Cain and to His offring he had not respect.

Speak unto the children of Lsrael, that they bring me am Exod. 25.2.
offting: of eberp man that aibeth it willingly ith bis Heart,
pee shall take mp offrina.

¥e shall not appear before the Dord empty: eberp man Deut. 16.
shall qibe as be is able, according to the blessing of the Lor
pour God fohich he hath qiben vou.

Wabi blessed the Lord before all the congregation: anv 1 Chron. 29.
said, Bslessed be thou, @ Lord God, for eber and eber. i:
Thine, D Lord, is the qreatnesse, and the qlorp, and the
bictorp, and the mafesty: for all that is in the Heaben and in
the earth, is thine: thine is the kingdome, @ Lord, and thou
art exalted as head above all: IWoth riches and Honour come of
thee, and of thine ofvn Yo fore gibe unto thee. FE know also
mp Gov, that thou trpest the heart, and hast pleasure in up-
tightnesse. As for me, in the uprightnesse of mp heart
Habe fillingly offered all these things. And nolo habe E seen
foith fop thy people fobhich are present here, to offer fillinglp
unto thee.

Gribe unto the Lord the glory due unto his name, bring an ps, 96. 8.
offering, and come into His courts.

32 The Communion.

arpenvix. Hap not up for pour selbes treasures upon earth, there

_*°- _ moth and rust doth corrupt, and fobere theebes breake through

Matt. 6.19 P

20. "and steal. ut lap up for pour selbes treasures in Heaben,
fohere neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and fohere theebes
Doe not break through, nor steal.

Matt. 7.12. JQot eberie one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdome of heaben: but he that doth the fill of mp
father fobich ts tn Heaven.

Mark 12. GHfesus sate ober against the treasurie, and beheld how the

41—44. people cast money into it: and manp that were rich cast in
much. Anvd there came a certain poore Widow, and she threto
in tho mites, MOhich make a farthing, And He called unto Him
His disciples, and saith unto them, Werily EF sap unto pou,
that this poore Mido hath cast more in, then all they Mobich
Habe cast into the treasurie. ffor all thep did cast in of thetr
abundance: but she of Her fant did cast in all that she had,
even all Der libing.

1Cor.9.7. Abo qoeth a Warfare anp time at His on charges? who
planteth a binepard, and eateth not of the frutt thereof? or
fobo feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

1Cor.9.11. LE foe habe sofn unto pou spirituall things, is tt a qreat
thing if fe shall reap pour carnall things?

1Cor.9.13, 0 pe not knolo that they fohich minister about holy things,

libe of the things of the temple? and then tMobich watt at the
altar, are pattakers foith the altar? hen so hath the Word
ordained, that then fbhich preach the Ghogpel, should live of
the Gospel.

2Cor.9.6, He Which sofveth sparingly, shall reap sparingly: and de

a> fbhich sofveth bountifully, shal reap bountifullp. Lherp man
according as He purposeth in His Heart, so let him give; not
grudgingly, or of necessity: for God lobeth a cheerfull qtber.

Gal.6.6,7. Wet him that is taught in the Mord, communicate unto Him
that teacheth, in all good things. Ibe not decetbed, Chod is not
mocked: for fohatsorber a man solucth, that shall be also
reap.

itim.6. Gharae them that are rich in this foorld, that they be not

V—19. High minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living
Gov, toho aibeth us richly all thinas to enfov. Ghat thep do
good, that thep be rich in good forks, ready to distribute,
filling to communicate: laping up in store for themselbes a

The Communion. 33

qood foundation against the time to come, that thep map lap scormsn
Hold on eternal life. Bese
God fs not unrighteous, to forget pour Work and labour of —*°" —
lobe, fohich pe Habe sheted toward his name, in that pe habe ae
mintstred to the saints, and do minister.
To Vo goov, and to communicate forget not, for with such wep. 13.16.

sacrifices God is foell pleased.

@ While the Presbyter distinctly pronounceth some or all of these
sentences for the offertory, the Deacon, or (if no such be present)
one of the Church-wardens shall receive the devotions of the people
there present in a bason provided for that purpose. And when all
have offered, hee shall reverently bring the said bason with the obla-
tions therein, and deliver it to the Presbyter, who shall humbly pre-
sent it before the Lord, and set it upon the holy Table. And the
Presbyter shall then offer up and place the bread and wine prepared
for the Sacrament upon the Lords Table, that it may be ready for
that service. And then he shall say,

{ Wet us prap for the Mohole state of Christs church militant
Here tn earth.

Almiadty and eberlibing Girod, Mhich by thy holy Apostle
Hast taught us to make prapers and supplications, and to qibe
thankes for all men: fe humbly beseech thee, most re there be
mercifullp (to accept our almes, and) to receibe these 2° almes

givento the

our prapers, Mbtch tue offer unto thy dibine Plafestic, poore, then
beseeching thee to inspire continually the unioersall 3a, fo
church with the spirit of truth, unitie, and concord: accepting
and qrant that all then that do confesse thy bolp coe sane
name, map agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and 2s.
libe in unity and godly lobe. Gee beseech thee algo to save
and defend all Christian Kings, WBrinces, and Grobernours,
and specially thy serbant Charles our Hing, that under him
fe map be godly and quietly goberned: and grant unto bis
fohole counsell, and to all that be put in authoritie under him,
that thep map truelp and indifferently minister fusiice, to the
punishment of foickednesse and bice, and to the maintenance
of Grovds true religion and bertue. Gribe grace (@ heabenly
Sather) to all Wishops, Wresbvters, and Curates, that thep
map both bp their life and doctrine set forth thy true and livelp
foord, and rightly and duely administer thy Holp sacraments:

and to all thy people give thy Heavenly grace, that With meek

HICKES, F

APPENDIX.

NO. Il.

34 The Communion.

Heart, and Due reberence they may Heare and receive thy dolv
foord, truly serbing thee in Holinesse and righteougnesse all the
Whenthere Vanes of their life. [And foe commend especially
isno com- unto thy mereffull qoodnesse the conqreaation wbich
munion , ,
these words (8 Bere assembled in thy name to celebrate the com-
sie memoration of the most precious death and sacrifice
are to be Of thy Son and our Dabiour FYesus Christ] And
left out. fe most Humblpy beseech thee of thy goodnesse, @
Lord, to comfort and succour all them fobich in this transitorp
life be in trouble, sorrofo, need, sicknesse, or any other adber-
sitie, And foe also blesse thy holy name for all those thy
serbants, foxbo habing finished their course in faith, do no
rest from their labours. And hore veeld unto thee most Hiad
praise and Hearty thankes for the wonderfull qrace and bertue
Declared in all thy saints, Moho Habe been the choice bessels of
thy qvace, and the lights of the fmorld tn their seberall qenera-
tions: most Dumblp beseeching thee, that fe map habe grace
to follow the example of their stedfastnesse in thy faith, and
obedience to thy holy commandements, that at the dan of the
qenerall resurrection, foee, and all then tobich are of the monsti-
call bodp of thy Son, map be set on His right hand, and hear
that His most fopfull botce, Come vee blessed of mv fFather,
Herit the kingdome prepared for pou from the foundation of the
World. Girant this, @ fFather, for Fesus Christs sake our
onlp {¥lediatour and Adbocate. Amen.

4 Then shall follow this exhortation at certain times when the
Presbyter or Curate shall see the people negligent to come to the
holy communion.

GAe be come together at this time (early belobed brethren)
to feed at the Lords supper, unto the Mich in Gods behalfe F
bid pou all that be Here present, and beseeci) pou for the Lord
Fesus Christs sake, that yee Mill not refuse to come thereto,
being $0 lovingly called and didden of God Himself. ¥e
knofe how grievous and unkinde a thing it ts, Mhen a man Hath
prepared a rich feast, decked his table with all kinde of probt-
sion, so that there lacketh nothing but the quests to sit dofun,
and vet then which be called (Without anv cause) most un-
thankfully refuse to come. GeAhich of pou in such a cage
fvould not be moved? GAHo Mould not think a great tnfurp
and rong Done unto Him? Therefore most dearly bde-

The Communion. 35

lobed in Christ, take pe good Heed, lest ve Mithdrafving
pour selbes from this bolp & upper, proboke Grods indiqnation
against pou. Zt fs an easie matter for a man to sap, i
fill not Communicate, because E am otherfoise letted hith
fvorldly busines: but such excuses bee not so easily accepted
and allofoed before God. Ff any man sap, Lam a qviebous
Sinner, and therefore am afraid to come: foherefore then do pe
not repent and amend? UWAhen rod calleth pou, be pou not
ashamed to sap, You fill not come? Aden pou should return
to Grov, fill vou excuse pour self, and sap that pou be not
ready? Consider earnestly foith pour selbes, hot little such
feianed excuses shall abaile before Gov. Then that refused
the feast in the Gospel, because they had bought a fFarme, ov
Mould trp their pokes of xen, or because they ere married,
fuere not so excused, but counted unfoorthy of that Heabenly
feast. for mp part am Here present, and according to mine
office, E bid pou in the JQame of Grod, FE call pou in Christs
bebalf, E exhort pou as pou lobe pour ofon salbation, that pe
fuill be partakers of this hHolp Communion. And as the Son
of Grod did bouchsafe to offer up Himself by death upon the
crosse for our salbation: eben so it is our Duty to celebrate
and receive the holy Communion together in the remembrance of
His death and sacrifice, as hee Himself commanded. Nolo if pou
fill in no wise thus do, consider With pour selbes Hol qreat
infurte pou do unto God, and holu sore punishment Hangeth
ober pour Heads for the same. And Mbhereas vou offend Chov
so grievously in refusing this Holy banquet, £ admonish, ex-
Hort, and beseech vou, that unto this unkindnes vou fill not
adde anp more: GAbich thing ve shall do, tf pe stand bp as
qazers, and lookers on them that do communicate, and be not
pattakers of the same pour selbes. for fobat thing can this
be accounted else, then a further contempt and unkindnesse
unto God? Truely, it is a qreat unthankfulnesse to sap nap
fuben pe be called: but the fault is much areater fohen men
stand bp, and pet fill not receive this holy sacrament fohich
is offered unto them. E pray vou, What can this be else, but
eben to Habe the mysteries of Christ in derision? Lt ts say
unto all, @ake pe, and eat; Gake and drinke pe all of this,
Wo this tn remembrance of me. GAith What face then, or
Mith Mhat countenance shall pe Heare these ordes? What will

SCOTTISH

COMM UNION

SERVICE, ~
1637,

APPENDIX.
NO. II.

36 The Communion.

this be else, but a neqlecting, a despising and mocking of the
testament of Christ? therefore rather then ve should so do,
Depart pou Hence, and qibe place to them that be godly disposed.
But Mhen pou depart, E beseech pou ponder With your selves,
from fohom pe depart; pe Depart from the Lords table, pe de-
part from pour brethren, and from the banquet of most heavenly
food. These things if ve earnestly consider, pee shall by Gods
qrace return to a better mind: for the obtaining fohereof, fe
shall make our bumble petitions, While foe shall recetbe the
Holy communion,

q And sometime shall this be said also, at the discretion of the
Presbyter or Curate.

Dearly beloved, forasmuch as our duty ts to render to al-
mighty God our Heabenly fFather most Hearty thanks, for that
He hath giben his Son our Sabiour Fesus Christ, not only
to die for us, but also to be our sptrituall food and sustenance,
ag it is Declared unto us, as fell by Gods ford, as bp the
Holy sacrament of His blessed body and bleud, the Mhich being
so comfortable a thing to them fobich receibe it orthilp, and so
Vangerous to them that till presume to recetue it untoorthilp:
mp Duty is to exhort pou to consider the diqnitie of the holp
mosterie, and the qreat perill of the unworthy recetbing thereof,
and $0 to search and examine pour ofone consciences, as pou
should come holy and clean to a most gouly and heabenlyp
feast, $0 that in no wise pou come but in the marriage qar-
ment required of Grod in Holy scripture, and so come and be
recetbed, as foorthy partakers of such a heavenly Cable. Che
foay and meanes thereto ts: 4First, to examine pour libes and
conbersation by the rule of Gods commandments, and foberein
soeber ve shall percetbe pour selbes to habe offended, either bp
foill, ford, or Deed, there bewaile pour ofn sinfull libes, and
confesse pour seloes to Almighty Cod, fith full purpose of
amendement of Itfe. And if pee shall pereeibe pour offences to
be such, as be not only against God, but also against pour
neighbours: then pe shall reconcile pour scloes unto them,
ready to make restitution and satisfaction according to the
uttermost of pour pofuers, for all infuries and foronas Done bp
pou to anp other, and likewise being readp to forgive other
that habe offended pou, as pou fould habe forgibenesse of pour

The Communion. 37

offences at Grods Hand: for otherkise the recetbing of the holy
Communion doth nothing else but merease pour Damnation.
Anvd because tt ts requistte that no man should come to the
holy Communion, but Hith a full trust in Gros merep, and
ith a quiet conscience: therefore if there be anp of vou, which
bp the means aforesaid, cannot quiet His ofun conscience, but
requiret!) further comfort or counsell, then let Him come to mee,
or some other discreet and learned Wresbpter or Minister of
Gods ford, and open his qriefe, that he map recethe such
qhostlp counsel, abdbice, and comfort, as bis conscience map
be relieved, and that by the ministerp of Grods Word He map
recetbe comfort, and the benefit of absolution, to the quieting
of His conscience, and abotding of all scruple and doubtful-
NSB.

€; Then shall the Presbyter say this exhortation.

DWearly beloved in the Word, ve that mind to come to the
Holy Communion of the Wodp and Wloud of our Sabiour
Christ, must consixer Mhat G. Baul foriteth to the Corin-
thians, Hof he exborteth all persons diligently to trie and
examine themselbes, before thep presume to eat of that Bread,
and drink of that Cup. ffor as the benefit is qreat, tf foith
a true penttent Heart and libelp faith fore receibe that holp
Sacrament: (for then foe spiritually eat the flesh of Whrist,
and drinke bis bloud; then fe dwell in Christ, and Christ
in us; foee be one With Christ, and Christ with us) Bo ts
the Danger qreat, tf foe receibe the same untoorthilp: for then
foe be quilty of the body and bloud of Christ our Sabsour ;
fue eat and drink our ofvn Damnation, not considering the
Lords bod: foe kindle Crods furath against us: fe provoke
Him to plaque us foith dibers diseases, and sundry kindes of
death. Therefore tf any of nou be a blasphemer of Choy, an
Hinderer or slanderer of Hig ford, an adulterer, or be in malice,
or enbie, or in any other qriebous crime, befaile pour sinnes,
and come not to this holy table; lest after the taking of that
Holy sacrament, the devil enter into pou, as be entred into
Pudas, and fill pou full of all tniquities, and bring vou to Ve-
struction both of body and soul. GYudge therefore pour seloes
(brethren) that pee be not fudged of the Lord. Wepent you
truely for pour sinnes past: habe a libely and stedfast faith

SCOTTISH
COMMUNION
SERVICE.

637.

38 The Communion.

avpenvrx. it Christ our Sabiour. Amend pour lives, and be in perfect

~ NO. IL

charitie fith all men, so shall vee be meet partakers of those
Holy mysteries. And above all thinas, pe must gibe most
humble and hearty thanks to Grod the Father, the Sonne,
and the bol Grhost, for the redemption of the world, by the
Death and passton of our Sabiour Christ, both God and
man, fobo div Humble himself eben to the death upon the
crosse for us miserable sinners, fbhich lap in Darknesse and
shadolv of death, that He might make us the children of Grov,
and exalt us to eberlasting life. And to the end that we
should alway remember the exceeding areat lobe of our sPasier
and only Sabiour Fesus Christ, thus dping for us, anv the
innumerable benefits hich by his precious bloud-shedding Hee
hath obiained to us: de Hath instituted and ordained holp
mysteries, as pledaes of His lobe, and continuall remembrance
of bis Death, to our great and endlesse comfort. Do Him
therefore, With the ffather, and the holy Gihost, let us gibe
(as fee are most bounden) continuall thanks, submitting our
seloes Wholly to His holy will and pleasure, and studptng to
serve him in true holinesse and righteousnesse all the dDapes of
our life. Amen.

q| Then shall the Presbyter say to them that come to receive the
holy Communion this invitation.

You that do truln and earnestly repent pou of pour
siimes, Xe.

€| Then shall this general Confession be made, in the name of all
those that are minded to receive the holy Communion, by the
Presbyter himself, or the Deacon, both he and all the people kneeling
humbly upon their knees.

Almighty God, ffather of our Hord Fesus Christ, maker
of all things, fudge of all men, foe acknofledae and befatle
our manifold sins and hickednesse, fobich fe from time to
time most qriebouslp Habe committed, by thought, ford, and
Deed, against thy diuine {Mafesty, proboking most justly thy
forath and indiqnation against us. @dle do earnestly repent,
and be heartily sorrp for these our misdoings, the remembrance
of them fs qriebous unto us, the burthen of them ts intoler-
able. Habe mercy upon us, habe merey upon us, most meret-
full Father, for thy Sonne our Lord Fesus Christs sake,

The Communion. 39

foraibe us all that is past, and qrant that fore map eber Here- scorrst.

COMMUNION

after serbe and please thee, in netonesse of life, to the Honour service.
and glory of thn Name, through Gesus Christ our Lory, ——
Amen.

4] Then shall the Presbyter or the Bishop (being present) stand
up, and turning himself to the people, pronounce the absolution, as
followeth.

Almighty God our headvenly ffather, Mho of His qreat
merep Hath promised forqibenesse, Xe.
€| Then shall the Presbyter also say.
{ Weare Mhat comfortable Mords our Sabtour Christ satth
unto all that trulp turn to Dim.
Come unto me all ve that labour, and are Heabp laden, and Matt. 11.
E fill give pou rest. So Grod lobed the World, that Hee gabe sons. 16.
His onelp begotten Sonne: that Mhosoeber beleebeth in Him,
should not perish, but habe eberlasting life.
{ Weare also What S. Baul saith.
This is a fatthfull saving, and Worthy of all acceptation, 1 Tim.1.15.
that Christ Fesus came into the World to sabe sinners.
{ Weare also Mhat S. Hobn saith.
Tf anp man sinne, foe habe an Adbocate With the Father, 1 John 2.
Pesus Christ the righteous: and hee ts the propttiation for ie
our sinnes.

€ After which the Presbyter shall proceede, saying,
Gift up pour Hearts.
Answer.
Gee lift them up unto the Lord.
Presbyter.
Ut us aibe thanks unto our Lord Gov.
Answer.
Lt ig meet and right so to do.
Presbyter.
Lt is berp meet, right, and our bounden Duty, that foce should

at all times, and in all places, aie thanks unto thee, @ Word,
holy father, Almighty, eberlasting Gov.

40 The Communion.

arrenvix. Here shall follow the proper Preface according to the time, if
No. _ there bee any especially appointed: or else immediatly shall follow,

Therefore with Anaels and Archanaels, Kc.

Proper prefaces.

{| Upon Christmas day, and seven dayes after.

Because thou didvest athe, Ke.

4 Upon Easter day, and seven dayes after.
But chiefly are Me Hound to pratse thee, Ke.
€{ Upon the Ascension day, and seven dayes after.
Through thy most dearelp helobed Sonne, Xe.
4 Upon Whitsunday, and six dayes after.

Through Fesus Christ our Word, according to {Whose most
true promise the holy Cibhost, Xe.

€ Upon the feast of Trinity onely.

Lt is berp meet, riqht, and our bounden duty, that Me should
at all times, and in all places aibe thanks to thee, @ Word
Almighty, and eberlasting Grod, Mhich art one Grovd, one Lord,
not one onelp person, but three persons in one substance. for
that wobhich foe beleebe of the qlorp of the father, the same foce
beleebe of the Sonne, and of the holy Crbhost, Without anp dif-
ference or inequality. Therefore With Angels, Xe.

4] After which Prefaces shall follow immediatly this doxologie.
Therefore Mith Anaels and Archanaels, Ke.

€ Then the Presbyter standing up, shall say the prayer of con-
secration, as followeth, but then during the time of consecration, he
shall stand at such a part of the holy Table, where he may with the
more ease and decency use both his hands.

Almtahty God our Heabenly ffather, which of thy tender
mercy Ddidst gibe thy onelp Sonne Gesus Christ to suffer
Death upon the Crosse for our redemption, ho made there (bp
His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sinnes of
the Mbhole World, and did institute, and in His Holy gospel com-

The Communion.

mand us to continue a perpetuall memorp of that His precious _scornist

death anv sacrifice, untill His coming aqatn: Weare
us, @ mercifull fFather, He most humbly beseech
thee, and of thy almighty qoodnesse bouchsafe so
to blesse and sanctifie fith thy foord and holp
Spirit these thy gifts and creatures of bread and
fine, that they map bee unto us the bodp and bloud
of thy most dearly belobed Son; so that foee re-
ceibing them according to thy Sonne our Sabiour
Fesus Christs Holy institution, in remembrance
of his death and passion, map be partakers of the
same His most precious body and bloud: who in
the night that be fas betrayed, took bread, anv
foben he had giben thanks, he brake it, and gabe tt
to His disciples, saping, Dake, eat, this ts mp body,
fhich is giben for pou; do this in remembrance of
me. Wikeloise, after supper He took the cup, anv
foben he had qiben thanks, he gabe it to them, sapina,
DWrinke vee all of this, for this is mp bloud of the new
testament, hich is shed for pou, and for many, for

At these
words
(took
bread) the
Presbyter
that offi-
ciates is to
take the
Paten in
his hand.

At these
words
(took the
cup) he is
to take the
chalice in
his hand,
and lay his
hand upon
so much,
be it in
chalice or
flagons, as
he intends
to conse-
crate.

the remission of sins: Do this as oft as pe shall drink it

in remembrance of me.

{| Immediatly after shall be said this memoriall or prayer of

oblation®, as followeth.

GAHerefore D Lord and Heabenly fFather, according to the
institution of thy dearly belobed Son our Sabtour Fesus
Christ, fe thy Humble serbants do celebrate and make Here
before thy dibine ¥lafestic, With these thy holy aifts, the
memortall fbhich thy Son hath tilled us to make, habing in
remembrance His blessed passion, mightie resurrection, and
glorious assension, rendring unto thee most heartie tharkes
for the innumerable benefits procured unto us bp the same.

4 Mr. Thorndike’s Just Weights and that form, which the first Book of

Measures, ch. xxii. p.157. “The Proper Edward VI. revived by the Scottish
Prefaces, and the Seraphim’s Hymn Liturgy, prescribeth. And that Me-
are of too ancient and general use in morial, or Prayer of Oblation, which is
the Catholic Church to be omitted there prescribed to follow immediately
without a mark of apostacy from the after the Consecration, is certainly
devotion of it which they express. more proper there, than after the Com-
The prayer which we consecrate with munion, ending with the Lord’s Prayer,

seemeth agreeable to the intent of and the Peace after that.”
God’s Church, but more agreeable is

HICKES, G

T
MMUNION
SERVICE.

1637.

APPENDIX,
NO. Il.

42 The Communion.

And foe entirely desire thy fFatherly qoodnesse, mercifully to
accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksaibing, most
humbly beseeching thee to quant, that by the merits and death
of thy Sonne Fesus Christ, and through fatth in his bloud,
foe (and all thy fohole church) man obtain remission of our
sinnes, and all other benefits of his passton. And Here hee
offer and present unto thee, Lord, our selbes, our gouls and
bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee,
Humbly beseeching thee, that Mhosoeber shall be partakers of
this holy communion, map forthilp recetbe the most precious
bovdie and bloud of thy Son Fesus Christ, and be fuliilled
With thy qrace and heabenly benediction, and made one bovdte
fwith him, that be map dioell in them, and they in dim. And
although fore be untvorthie, through our manifold sinnes, to
offer unto thee anp sacrifice: pet fore beseech thee to accept
this our bounden Dutie and serbice, not Meighing our merits,
but pardoning our offences, through Gesus Christ our Word ;
bp fohom, and With Mhom, in the unitie of the holy Ghost, all
Honour and glory be unto thee, @ ffather almiahtic, Morld
foithout end. Amen.

| Then shall the Presbyter say: As our Saviour Christ hath
commanded and taught us, we are bold to say,

@Our Father Which art in Heaben, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdome come. Thp fill bee done in earth as it ts tn
Heaven. Ghribe us this dap our daily bread. And foragibe us
our trespasses, as fore forgive them that trespasse against us.
And lead us not into temptation: but deliber us from ebil.
For thine ts the kingdome, the poker, and the qlorie, for eber
and eber, Amen.

4 Then shall the Presbyter kneeling down at Gods board, say in
the name of all them that shall communicate, this collect of humble
accesse to the holy communion, as followeth.

Gee Do not presume to come to this thy table (@ mercifull
Lord) trusting in our ofen riqhteousnesse, but in thy manifold
and qreat mercies. Ge be not fworthie so much as to gather
up the crumbes under thy table. Mut thou art the same Word,
fuhose propertie is alfeaies to habe mercie: grant us therefore,
qracious Word, so to cat the flesh of thy Dear Son F[esus

“— The Communion. 43

Christ, and to drink His blood, that our sinfull bodies map scormsx

COMMUNION

bee made cleane bp His body, and our souls foashed through His service.

most precious bloud, and that fore map ebermore dfoell in Him,
and he in us, Amen.

{ Then shall the Bishop, if he be present, or else the Presbyter
that celebrateth, first receive the communion in both kindes himself,
and next deliver it to other Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons (if any
be there present) that they may help him that celebrateth; and after
to the people in due order, all humbly kneeling. And when he
receiveth himself, or delivereth the bread to others, he shall say this
benediction.

Che bodp of our Lord FYesus Christ, hich twas gqiben for
thee, preserbe thy body and soul unto eberlasting life.

Here the partie receiving shall say, Amen.

{ And the Presbyter or Minister that receiveth the cup himself,
or delivereth it to others, shall say this benediction.

The bloud of our Lord Fesus Christ Mhich was shed for
thee, preserbe thy body and soul unto eberlasting life.

Here the party receiving shall say, Amen.

{| When all have communicated, he that celebrates shall go to the
Lords table, and cover with a fair linen cloth, or corporall, that which
remaineth of the consecrated elements, and then say this collect of
thanksgiving, as followeth.

Almiqdtie and eberlibing Grod, fee most heartily thank
thee, for that thou doest bouchsafe to feed us, which habe Duelp
recetbed these Holy monsteries, With the spirituall food of the
most precious bodp and bloud of thn Sonne our Sabiour
Hesus Christ, and doest assure us thereby of thy fabour anv
goodnesse towards us, and that foe be berp members incorporate
in thy moysticall body, fhich ts the blessed companie of all
fatthfull people, and be also heives through hope of thp eber-
lasting Ringdome, bp the merits of the most precious death and
passion of thy dear Sonne: foe nofo most humbly beseech thee,
® heavenly father, so to assist us With thy grace, that foe
map continue in that Holy fellowship, and do all such good
Works as thou hast prepared for us to talk in, through Fesus
Christ our Lord; to fTohom With thee and the holy Ghost, be
all Honour and glorie, foorld without end. Amen.

1637.

APPENDIX,

NO. Il.

ay
; #4
4A The Communion. * -

{ Then shall be said or sung Gloria in excelsis, in
as followeth.

Gilovie be to Grod on high, &e.

4] Then the Presbyter, or Bishop, if he be present, shall Let
. them depart with this blessing.

The peace of Crod fobhich passeth, Ke.

{] After the divine service ended, that which was offered shall be —

divided in the presence of the Presbyter, and the Church-wardens,
whereof one half shall be to the use of the Presbyter to provide him
books of holy divinity: the other half shall be faithfully kept and
employed on some pious or charitable use, for the decent furnishing
of that Church, or the publike relief of their poore, at the discretion
of the Presbyter and Church-wardens.

Cokcts to be said after the offertory, when there is no
Communion ; every such day one or more. And the
same may bee said also as often as occasion shall serve,
after the Collects either of Morning and Evening
prayer, Communion, or Letany, by the discretion of
the Presbyter or Minister.

Assist us mercifully, PB Lord, in these our supplications
and prapers, and dispose the fap of thy serbants tofvards the
attainment of eberlasting salbation, that among all the changes
and chances of this mortal life, they map eber be defended bp
thy most gracious and readp Helpe, through Christ our Lord.
Amen,

® Almighty LORD, and eberlasting God, bouchsate
foe heseech thee, to direct, sanctifie, and qoberne both our hearts
and bodies in the fapes of thy Wales, and in the forks of
thn Commandements, that through thy most mighty protection,
both Here and eber, ee map bee preserved in bodp and soul,
through our Lord and Sabiour Fesus Christ. Amen.

-s The Communion. 45

ee Habe Heard this dap fith our outhoard eaves map
» map bring forth in us the fruit of good lipina, to the
€ ineas and praise of thn Name, throuah Fesus Christ our
— Lord. Amen.

Prebent us, @ LORD, in all our doings, With thy most
gracious favour, and further us with thy continuall help, that
in all our forks bequn, continued, and ended in thee, fe map
qlorifie thy holy Name, and finally bp thy merep obtain eber-
lasting life, through Gesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Almiqhtp GOD the fountain of all GHisedome, which
knofvest our necessities before foe ask, and our iqnorance in
asking: fue beseech thee to habe compassion upon our infir-
‘Mities, and those things Mohich for our unfoorthinesse foee dare
not, and for our blindnesse foee cannot ask, bouchsafe to gibe
us, for the fvorthinesse of thn Sonne Yesus Christ our Lord.
Amen,

Almiahtyp GOD, which hast promised to heare the peti-
tions of them that ask in thy Sons Name, foe beseech thee
mercifully to encline thine ears to us, that habe made nov our
prapers and supplications unto thee, and qrant that those
things Mbich fe habe faithfully asked according to thy will,
map effectually bee obtained, to the relief of our necessitie, and
to the setting forth of thp alorp, through ae Christ our
Low. Amen.

Upon the Holy-dayes (if there be no Communion) shall be said all
that is appointed at the Communion, untill the end of the Homily,
concluding with the generall prayer, (for the whole estate of Christs
Church militant Here in earth) and one or more of these Collects
before rehearsed, as occasion shall serve.

4] And there shall be no publick celebration of the Lords Supper,
except there bee a sufficient number to communicate with the
Presbyter, according to his discretion.

t fue beseech thee Almighty Giod, that the words scormsu

COMMUNION

SERVICE.
1637

thy qrace be so grafted inwardly in our hearts, that 27

APPENDIX,

No. Il.

7
ot @ ao

46 The Communion. t

{ And if there be not above twenty persons in the parish, of dis-
cretion to receive the Communion; yet there shall be no Communion,
except foure or three at the least communicate with the Presbyter.

§{ And in Cathedrall and Collegiat Churches, where be many
Presb yters, and Deacons, they shall all receive the Communion with
the Presbyter that celebrates every Sunday at the least, except they
have a reasonable cause to the contrary.

q And to take away the superstition, which any person hath or
might have in the Bread and Wine, (though it be lawfull to have
wafer bread) it shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usuall: yet
the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten.
And if any of the Bread and Wine remaine, which is consecrated, it
shall be reverently eaten and drunk by such of the communicants
only as the Presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it
shall not be carried out of the Church. And to the end there may
be little left, he that officiates is required to consecrate with the least,
and then if there be want, the words of consecration may be repeated
again, over more, either bread or wine: the Presbyter beginning at
these words in the prayer of consecration (our Sabiour in the night
that he was betraped, took, &c.)

~¥ The Bread and Wine for the Communion, shall be provided by
the Curate and the Church-wardens, at the charges of the Parish.

{| And note that every parishioner shall communicate at the least
three times in the year, of which Pasch or Easter shall be one, and
shall also receive the Sacraments and observe other Rites, according
to the order in this book appointed.

EE EN i PX,

No. 3.

is gd gh Ug fl Aid gh

No. 4.

AN EXTRACT OF A SERMON UPON | TIM. lili. 1,2. OF THE DIGNITY AND
DUTY OF THE MINISTRY. PREACHED BY GEORGE DOWNAME, D.D.2 AND
PUBLISHED AT LONDON, 1608.

The text as it is in the title-page:

It is a faithful saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he
coveteth a good work. A bishop therefore must be unre-
proveable, &c.

The text as it is before the sermon:

Faithful is this saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he
coveteth a good, or goodly, work. A bishop therefore must be
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of decent
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, &.

Tue blessed Apostle, [&c.>] So that this text® is an
enthymeme, as we call it, the antecedent whereof setteth
forth amplitudinem minister, the dignity of the ministry,
or worthiness of the calling; the consequent, aptitudinem
ministrorum, the worthiness of the persons who are to be
ministers, inferred thereupon.

The antecedent Paul confirmeth by his own testimony.
For that asseveration mucrés 6 Adyos, “it is a faithful saying,”
hath (as oaths also have) the force of a testimony; and in
this place is used 7rpoAnTTiKds, that is,.by way of prevention.
For as the oaths, which the Holy Ghost interposeth any
where in the Scriptures, do argue our infidelity, so these
asseverations do presuppose in us some contrary and errone-

" [George Downame was at this the original, and the text of Hickes’
time chaplain to King James I.; he third edition corrected by it. ]
became bishop of Derry in 1616, and Palade

died in 1634. ce [p. 3.]
This sermon has been collated with

HICKES. H

50 The Christian Ministry an honourable office.

appexpix. OuS conceit. As if the Apostle had said: although carnal

ne men, whose “wisdom is enmity against God,” do basely esteem

of ministers in regard of their calling; yet it is a most cer-

tain truth, which by the Spirit of truth I do testify unto

you, that the office of ministers is an excellent and worthy

calling, and that they are greatly honoured of God, whom

He calleth thereunto. Indeed it is, and always hath been,

the lot and condition of God’s ministers in this world to be

ales contemned, scorned and abused. The prophets, who were the

‘ambassadors of the great God, and angels of the Lord of

hosts, were despised and derided. The Apostles, who were

the twelve patriarchs as it were of the Israel of God, and

ambassadors sent from Christ’s side, to reconcile men unto

1 Cor. 4.13. God, were notwithstanding esteemed as the “scum of the

world, and offscouring of all things.” But what speak I of

servants? Was not Christ Himself, our royal Priest and

3.1. Prophet, “the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession,”

Mark 3.21. of His own kindred esteemed as a mad-man; of His ill-

52. 8.48) Villers slandered as a demoniac ; of Herod and his gallants
scorned, and even set at nought‘?

Against this carnal conceit of profane men, the Holy
Ghost opposeth His verdict, when He saith, ‘ This is a faithful
saying.” Whereby we are taught, unless we had rather con-
form our judgments to the vain opinion of the wicked world,
than to the infallible censure of the Holy Ghost, to conceive
honourably of the ministers of God.

And this was the prosyllogism or proof of the antecedent,
taken from the testimony of God’s Spirit speaking in the
Apostle, and prefixed as a preface, to win both attention and
credit to this text.

Now followeth the antecedent itself. ‘Ifa man desireth the
office of a bishop, he desireth a good,” or excellent “work.”
In which words, besides the commendation of the ministry,
which is the main intendment thereof, two things are briefly
to be discussed. The one, whether it be lawful for a man to
desire the office of a bishop? the other, what is the office
of a bishop, which the Apostle here doth so highly commend ?
Of the former the Apostle maketh no question, but taketh it
for granted, that it is lawful for a man to desire this func-

4 ekouvbernoas 5¢ avroy “Hpddns. Luke xxiii. 11.

The desire of it lawful and commendable. 51

tion. ‘ For what” (saith Chrysostome) “ doth the Apostle say? vowxame
If a man desire the function of a bishop, I mislike it not, he cee
desires a goodly work.” For first, when men consecrate them- “ST®¥:
selves, as Nazarites, to the study of divinity, they do it in Numb. 6;
this desire; which if it be a desire, as well to do the work of Amos 2,11.
the ministry, as to obtain the honour thereto belonging,
is without doubt most acceptable unto God. And after-
wards, when God hath blessed their studies, and fitted them
for this function, this desire and willingness to exercise their
gifts, and to employ their talents, is a part of their calling
from God. For God calleth men, partly inwardly by Himself,
not only furnishing them with those gifts which appertain to
the sufficiency of a minister, but also giving them this zpo- Rom. 1.15;
@uvpiayv, or willing readiness to employ their gifts; and partly 1 Pet. 5. 2
outwardly, by His substitutes, to whom in His Church He hath
committed the power of calling, ordaining, and admitting
ministers. The Prophet Esay, when his tongue had been Esay 6.6,
touched with a coal from the altar, and he had heard the *
voice of the Lord, saying “ Whom shall I send?” he offereth
himself, and saith, Ecce me, ‘“‘ Behold, heream I, send me.” A
desire therefore to glorify God in the service of the Church,
and a signification of this desire, when a man is fitted for
the calling, is not only lawful, but also commendable. The
greedy and ambitious desire of them who either are not
willing, or not able to glorify God in the ministry, is that
which is to be condemned.

As touching the second, it will be objected, that the call-
ing of a bishop, being a function of great authority and pre-
eminence in the Church of God, is indeed an excellent and
worthy work; but what is this to other ministers, who are
subject to the bishops? I answer, by éwucxomy we are in
this place to understand the office, and by éricxozros the
person, not only of such as ever since the Apostles’ times
have properly been called bishops, (howsoever this place is
principally to be understood of them, and so is expounded
by divers of the fathers‘,) but of all pastors and ministers of

¢ [St. Chrysostom’s words are, kal eplecOar pdvov, AAG THS TpooTaclas,
Tt dnow; ef tis emioKoT7s opéyeTat, ovK eYKAA®. KaAOD yap Epyou emOupet,
OvK eYKAAG, Pyot. TpocTacias yap épyov dyow.—sS. Chrys. in 1 Tim. Hom. x.
éotiv. ef Tis TavTny exer Thy emiOuuiay, adinit. Op., tom. xi. p. 598, E.
bore wy HS apxys Kal 77s avlevtias f [diaAcydmevos mepl emiakdrwy,...

APPENDIX.
__NO. ly.

—

Tit. 1. 5—7.

52 Whether bishops or presbyters are intended in the text,

the word and Sacraments in general. Which interpretation
may be confirmed by conference of this Scripture with Tit. i.,
where the same canon being repeated, the Apostle useth
sometimes the word émicxozros, and sometimes 7peoButepos.
From whence we may gather, either that by bishop here the
Apostle meaneth any presbyter, the names being as yet
confounded, as Jerome and Theodoret® suppose; or at the
least, that the same things which here are spoken of the duty
and dignity of bishops, do also appertain to presbyters in
general; which cause the other fathers allege, why presby-
ters be not expressly mentioned in this place. But howso-
ever the fathers seem to be divided in the interpretation of
the word bishop, some of them by bishop understanding
every presbyter, others those who properly are called bishops ;
yet all agree in this, that both of presbyters and bishops,
that is to say, of all ministers in general, this text is under-
stood. For Theodoret", though he say, that by bishop every
presbyter is here meant ; yet he professeth that what is here
said of presbyters, doth chiefly appertain to bishops. And
the other fathers, though they understand this text as spoken
of them who properly are called bishops; yet they say, that
in the name of bishops, presbyters are also included. Here
by the way we are to note, that if the names of bishop and
presbyter in the writings of the Apostles be confounded,

kal To Ta&v mpecBuTepay Tayua adels,
eis Tovs Siakdvous (v. 8.) meremndnoe.
tl Snmote; Sti ov TOAD pégoy avToy
kal Tov emiokdtwv. Kal yap Kal avTol
didackaArlay eioly avadedeypevor, Kal
mpootactay Tis eKKAnolas’ Kal & Trepl
émickdTwy ele, TAVTA Kal mpeaBuTepats
apudtres. |—S. Chrys. [ibid., Hom. xi.
ad init. in 1 Tim. iii. 8. p, 604, C, D.]

[Post episcopum tamen diaconatus
ordinationem subjecit. Quare nisi
quia episcopi et presbyteri una ordi-
natio est? uterque enim sacerdos est,
sed episcopus primus est; ut omnis
episcopus presbyter sit, non tamen
omnis presbyter episcopus.—Pseudo- }
Ambros. Comment. in 1 Tim. iii. 8.
[S. Ambros. Op., tom. ii, App., p. 295,
A. |

{ Queritur cur de presbyteris nullam
fecerit mentionem, sed eos episcoporum
nomine comprehenderit: quia secun-
dus, imo pene unus est gradus, &e.—
Pseudo-Hieron. in loc.; ap. S. Hieron.
Op., tom. xi. col. 1048, A. |

[rl drore Tovs tpeaBuTEepous aP7Ker ;
bri & wep) émickdmwy cite, TadTa Kal
tmpeaButepots apudrre:. Kat yap Kal avtol
didackaAlay Kal mpooraciay THs eKKAn-
clas éykexeipiomevor ciolv, pdvyn TH
xeipotovia, tmroBeBnkdTes. — Theophy-
lact. Comm. in loc. Op., tom. ii. p.
567, E.]

& [émickomoy 5& evtavda Toy mpeo-
Birepov A€yer....TovS avTovs exa-
Novy wore mpecButepous Kal emickdTous.
Tovs 5€ viv KadoumEevous emioKdtous,
amoordéAous évéuatov.—Theodoret. in
1 Tim. iii. Op., tom. iii. p. 473, D.]

» Theodoret. in 1 Tim. iii. Etiamsi
presbyteris has leges constituit divi-
nus Apostolus, clarum est quod eas
oportet primos servare episcopos, ut
qui majorem sint .dignitatem assecuti.
[ei kal mpecBurépois Tatra 6 Oeios évo-
uobérnae TlavAos, evdnAov ws Tos
érickémous mpaeTous mpoonket TovTOUS
dvAdtTew ToUs vomous, ate 5) Kal mel-
Covos petadaxovTas tiyuns.—Ibid., p.
174, A. ]

their office is a “work,” and an honour. 53

as Jerome and Theodoret teach, and many in our times not pvowname
only affirm, but also out of Acts xx., Tit. i., Phil. i., 1 Pet. v., cimertan
confirm, insomuch as every bishop is a presbyter, so every “NST *
presbyter a bishop, according to the Apostles’ phrase ; then it San a
follows necessarily, that in the Apostles’ writings there are HEY ioe
no presbyters mentioned, but such as are pastors and minis- 5. 1, 2.
ters of the word. And agreeable to the phrase of the Apo-
stles, hath the perpetual use of this word been in the primi-
tive Church: there being, as I suppose, not any one example
to be alleged out of any council or father, where the word
presbyter doth signify any other than a minister or priest.
And if the like shall be objected against bishops, that in the
Apostles’ times there was no difference betwixt presbyters and
them ; I answer, though the names of bishop and presbyter
were for a short time confounded, yet the functions were not,
as I have elsewhere shewed’.

But to come to that which, as I said, is the main intend-
ment of these words: the commendation which the Apostle
giveth to the office of a bishop, is, that it is kandv épyor, “a
worthy work.” He calleth it a work, that we should not
imagine it to be an idle dignity, which when we have once
obtained, we might give over ourselves to ease and security ;
but a work full of employment and difficulty, wherein it be-
hoveth ministers (who are the Lord’s workmen’) to labour,
and, as the Apostle speaketh, cozrvav, that is, “to labour unto 1 Tim. 5.
weariness.”” But neither is it a servile work, or a base minis- ieee
try; but xanrov épyov, “a goodly and excellent work.”

Two things therefore do here offer themselves to our
consideration, onus et honos ministerivi, “the burden and the
honour of the ministry,” both appertaining to the greatness
of this calling, and both requiring (which is the Apostle’s
scope) a correspondency of gifts in the person of the minister’. ! [“minis-
For in regard of both we may justly use that exclamation, ee ao
Kai Tpos Tadra Tis ixavos; “and who is sufficient for these res
things?” that is, who is able to bear this burden, who is 16.
worthy to have this honour? For in that he calleth it a work,
that appertaineth to the burden; in that he termeth it ex-

' In Apoe. i. 20. [The reference Mountague, bishop of Bath and Wells,
is to a sermon on this text, ‘‘in defence and published in 1608, pp. 28, Sqq- ;

of the honourable function of bishops,” see above, vol. ii. p. 374, note b. |
preached at the consecration of James } Matt. ix. 38. | 2pyarat. |

54 The duty and dignity of the ministry inseparable.

appenpix. cellent, that belongeth to the honour: and these two are

a unseparable companions; for honos et onus, “honour and
charge” go together. Whence it is, that the same Hebrew
words signifieth both honorare and onerare. For whom God
advanceth unto honour, them He doth burden with a charge ;
and on whom He imposeth a burden, to them He vouchsafeth
honour. And as they be unseparable, so also proportionable.
For such as is the weight of the burden, such is the height of
the honour, and contrariwise. These things therefore which
the Holy Ghost hath unseparably united ought not to be
separated, neither by the ministers themselves, nor yet by
the people. Desirest thou the honour of the ministry, uf presis,
that thou mayest be preferred above others? thou must also
desire the work of the ministry, ué prosis, that thou mayest
profit others. For, ‘he that desireth the office of a bishop,
desireth an excellent work.” Art thou discouraged with the
weight of the burden? so much let the height of the honour,
which God hath in this life awarded, and in the life to come
provided for faithful ministers, encourage thee. As for the
people; many care not how great a burden they lay upon the
ministers, and how little honour they afford them; as though
their charge among all callings could be the greatest, and
their honour the least. In a word, let us on all hands so
acknowledge the duty and dignity of the ministry to be con-
joined, that the ministers be as ready to perform the duty of
the ministry, as to challenge the honour; and the people as
willing to yield the double honour of reverence and main-
tenance to their minister, as from him to expect the perform-
ance of his duty. For “what things God hath conjoined, let
no man sever.”

But howsoever in use these things may not be disjoied ;
yet, that I may distinctly and orderly speak of them, I am
for a while to sever them in my speech. And first we are to
weigh the burden of the ministry. For that are we to under-

1Tim. 5. go, before we can justly claim the honour. Double honour
ae indeed belongeth to the ministry; of which, as the people
must count their ministers worthy, so must we labour to be
worthy. For dé&ov eivar should go with a&ote@a. And
who are worthy of the honour of the ministry? Surely they

a a a:

The duiy—to attend to themselves, and their flock. 55

which bear the burden, or do the work of the ministry. The vowxame
work of a bishop, whereof the Apostle speaketh, is, as may be cae
gathered out of the words, cad@s émucxorTrety, “to be a good MINISTRY.
superintendent,” whereunto Peter exhorteth ; 1 Epist.v. Now 1 Pet. 5. 2.
what that is, the Apostle sheweth, Acts xx., where he exhort-

eth the ministers of Ephesus, that they ‘ would attend unto Acts 20. 28.
themselves, and to the whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost

had made them superintendents, to feed the Church of God

which He hath purchased with His own blood.” The same

He repeateth, though in other words, 1 Tim. v. Ministers 1 Tim.5.17.
“are to be accounted worthy of double honour.” But who?

oi KaN@S TrpoecTaTes, that “are good presidents, especially

they that labour in the word and doctrine.” For to feed the

flock is the chief work of the pastor or bishop, as appeareth

in all these three places. “ Feed the flock,” saith Peter to the
ministers, évrucKo7robvtes, “ performing the office of bishops

or superintendents, not as of necessity, but as willingly,” &c.

But to speak more distinctly, the work of a bishop or pastor,

which, as I said, is kada@s tpoictacOat, or émucKorrecy, “ to

be good presidents, or superintendents,” contaimeth these
branches. The first is, that they attend to themselves; the

second, to their flock. To themselves, that they may be pre-

cedents, and as the Holy Ghost speaketh, tvzros, “ patterns” se ° 3;
and samplers of a godly life. For this in the Apostle’s phrase is ~~" °
Tpotatacbar THY Kadav épywr, “to be precedents of good
works!.” But of this more, when I come to the worthiness of

the person: verse 2. To the flock also they must attend,

feeding and overseeing the same both willingly and carefully, 1 Pet. 5

as those who are to give an account. For whom in the Heb. 18. V
New Testament the Holy Ghost calleth émrucxézrovs, “ super-
intendents,” in the Old He calleth speculatores™, “watchmen;”

whose office is the custody and guardianship, not of men’s

bodies, but, that which is more", of their souls; for which

they are to watch, as they who are to give an account. In-

somuch, that if any of their flock shall perish through their

default ; they shall perish indeed in their sins, but their blood Bae 3.17;
will the Lord require at the watchmen’s hands. And this ~~

1 Tit. iii. 8, 14, [“ to maintain good n Ars est artium regimen anima-
works.” Eng. Vers. } rum.—S. Gregor. M. Regule Pasto-
™ Tsophim. [p95 yy. | ralis, pars i. c. 1. [Op., tom. ii. col. 3, A.]

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

Acts 20. 26.

2 Tim, 3.
16.
Ezek. 34. 4.

i Thess. 5.
14.

1 Pet. 5. 2.

1 Sam. 12.
os

Deut. 31. 9.
Heb. 9. 4, d.

Numb. 17.
8.

1 Tim. 5, 17.

2 Tim. 3. 16.

2 Tim. 4.
Tes

1 Cor. 2. 4.
2 Cor. 4.2;
ree

56 = The burden of the ministry prefigured by the Ark.

doth the Apostle Paul insmuate in his farewell sermon, where
in the conscience of his ministry faithfully performed, he pro-
fesseth that he was “ free from the blood of them all.” ‘ By
which word,” saith Gregory®, ‘ we are convicted who are
called priests, who besides those evils which we have of our
own, do add the deaths of other men. For so many do we
kill, as we do suffer through our negligence and silence to
perish.” Now we are to attend the flock, first, by watching
over the same as good shepherds, accommodating ourselves
to their several estates and necessities. As namely, to struct
the ignorant, to reduce the erroneous, to heal the diseased,
to seek the lost, to admonish the disorderly, to comfort the
distressed, to support the weak, to be patient towards all.
Secondly, by feeding them in the ministry of the word and
Sacraments. And, lastly, by praying for them both publicly
and privately.

This burden of the ministry was after a sort prefigured by
the burden of the ark, which was imposed on the priests. For
in the ark was the ‘‘ golden pot having manna, and Aaron’s
fruitful rod, and the tables of the covenant, and upon it the
propitiatory overshadowed with the glorious cherubins.” For
by the pot of manna, we may understand the Sacraments ;
by the rod, ecclesiastical discipline; by the budding and
fruitfulness of it, their fruitful conversation ; by the tables,
the preaching of the law; and by bearing the propitiatory
(figuring Christ), the ministry of reconciliation committed
unto the ministers of God, both in respect of prayer and also
of preaching.

But the principal burden and chief work of the ministry,
for which double honour is especially due to ministers, is the
preaching, that is, the expounding and applying of the word
to the divers uses of doctrine, confutation, instruction, and
reproof. ‘To the diligent performance whereof, in the “ de-
monstration of the spirit,” in “ sincerity as in the sight of
God,” in “discretion?” and “faithfulness4,” as it becometh the
wise and faithful steward of God, with “‘gravity',’ “judg-

o [In qua voce nos convenimur, nos _ tepidi et tacentes videmus.—S. Gregor.
constringimur, nos rei esse ostendimur, M. in Ezech. lib. i. Hom, xi. § 9. Op.,
qui sacerdotes vocamur, qui super ea tom. i. col. 1285, B, C.]
mala quz propria habemus, alienas P Matt. xxiv. 45.
quoque mortes addimus: quia tot occi- 9 1 Cor. iv. 2.
dimus, que ad mortem ire quotidie Sab HS 7

The ministry of the Word. Dignity of the office. 57

ment’,”’ “boldness,” and ‘‘ power';” and finally, with zeal of powname
God’s glory" and salvation of the hearer’: the minister is (tment
bound with a double bond of necessity, the one, in regard of M!SISTRY.
himself; the other, in respect of the people. In regard of our-

selves, every one of us must say with the Apostle, “ Necessity 1 Cor. 9. 16.
is laid upon me, and woe unto me if I preach not the gospel.”

For if they be subject to the curse who withhold the corn,

what is to be expected of them who withdraw from the people

of God the divine food of their souls ? Assuredly both are ac-

cursed; they, of the people; these, of God: woe to those Prov. 11.26.
pastors, gui non pascunt, sed depascunt gregem, “who feed not Ezech. 34.2.
the flock, but feed upon it.” And again, ve pastori nihili,

“Woe to the idle shepherd that forsaketh the flock: the Zech. 11.
sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye,” (where- *’

by is meant his power and judgment.) “ His arm shall be

dried up, and his eye shall be utterly darkened.”

In regard of the people, the ministry of the word is so
necessary, that our Saviour saith there is “ necessity” of this Luke 10.42.
“one thing.” And Solomon, that “where this is wanting, the Prov. 29. 18.
people perish.” But the necessity of preaching in respect
of the people, appertaineth to the dignity of the ministry,
whereof I am now to speak.

And first of the office itself, and then of those titles where-
with ministers are adorned in the word of God. Of the office
I am to speak, first, absolutely ; then, by way of comparison.
Absolutely it is affirmed in this place, to be an excellent or
worthy work: and Heb. v. an “ honour :” and elsewhere we Heb. 5. 4.
are taught, that for this work’s sake the ministers are “ ex-
ceedingly to be loved, and reverenced™,” and for the dignity
of their function to be “had in honour.” Yea, that the phil. 2. 29.
very “ feet of those which preach the gospel” ought to seem Isa. 52. 7;
“beautiful” unto us. And the same may be confirmed, ®°™!!
by consideration of the institution of the ministry; the
eminency of the persons who have exercised this function ;
the excellency of the end for which it was ordained; and,
lastly, the dignity of the parts, whereof it doth consist.

First, therefore, ministers were ordained to supply the

* Micah iii. 8. : « John vii. 18; Mal. ii. 2.
t Ephes. vi. 19, 20; Jer. i. 8, 17; ¥ (2) Cora xi.) 2);) Gal. iv, 19;
Ezek. iii. 8, 9. © 1 Thess. v. 13, trép ex mepiovod.

HICKES, I

APPENDIX,
NO. IV.

Gen. 22.11,
12; Exod.
3. 2, 4,63
Gen. 32. 28,
30; Hosea
12. 3, 4;
Exod. 23.
2Oe 21 ea
Cor. 10. 9.
Mal. 3; 1,

Deut. 18.
18.

John 20.21.
2 Cor. 5.-20.

1 John 4. 6.

Acts 10. 33.
1 Thess. 2.
oe

Gal 4. 14.

Luke 10. 16.

58 The ministers of Christ are His representatives.

office, and sustain the person of the Son of God, who is the
Word and Wisdom of His Father. For from the beginning of
the world until the times of Moses, the Lord for the most
part in His own person, performed the office of preaching to
His people. In which respect He is often called in the books
of Moses, “ the angel of God,” and elsewhere “ the angel of
the covenant.” But when the Lord in terrible manner had
published His law from heaven, and the people not being able
to endure His voice, had humbly intreated Him that He
would be pleased to speak unto them by a prophet; upon
this occasion the Lord ordained the public ministry, and pro-
mised a continual succession of prophets, (into whose mouth
He would put His words,) which was to continue until Christ,
in whom especially that prophecy was verified. And again,
when Christ was to ascend into heaven He ordained the
ministers of the gospel, as the ambassadors of God, in His
stead ; affirming, that as His Father “ had sent Him, so He did
send them.” For “ we,” saith the Apostle, “are the ambassa-
dors of God in Christ’s stead, even as though God did intreat
you by us; we beseech you in Christ’s stead, be reconciled
unto God.” The ministers therefore were ordained to supply
the room of Christ. Which the Lord did, not that He would
have the ministry of the word less esteemed, than if He should
speak from heaven Himself; but that He might by this
means teach us after a more familiar manner, and might
make the better trial of our obedience. For as John saith,
“he that knoweth God, heareth us; and who is not of God,
heareth us not.” Our duty therefore is, when God doth
speak unto us by His ministers, to set ourselves, with Cor-
nelius and his company, in the presence of God; and to
hear tov Aoyov axons, “the word preached, not as the word
of man, but as it is indeed the word of God:” and to receive
the ministers of God, as the Galatians entertained Paul, as
the ambassadors of Christ, as the angels of God, yea, as
Christ Himself. For so hath He said to His ministers,
“he that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth
you, despiseth Me.”

But let us also consider the excellency of those persons,
who have in former times exercised any part of this function.
And here I could commend unto you Noah, the prince of the

Excellence of those who have exercised these functions. 59

world, and preacher of righteousness’; Melchisedec, who powsame
was both a king and priest” ; Moses the prophet and prince ee
of Israel ; David a king and a prophet; Solomon, that glori- “SS
ous king, affecting the name of a preacher*. I might allege,

that the kings among the heathen, were also priests. For

hence it was, that the Athenians and the Romans, after they

had expelled their tyrannizing kings, did ordain to themselves

reges sacrificos, “ sacrificing kings,” because certain sacrifices

among them might not be offered but by kings. But what

speak I of mere men? the Son of God, before His incarnation,

as you heard before, was the angel and messenger of God

unto His people; and after He became flesh, He professed that

He was sent to preach. And who knoweth not, that He being Luke 4. 18,
truly and only tpscpéyioros, as He is our king, so also our a
prophet, and our priest? And that which yet more setteth

forth the excellency of the ministry; Christ, who, as He was

God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God; yet as He

was also man, He would not take upon Him this honour to

be our priest, unless He had been called thereto of God, as Heb. 5. 4,5.
Aaron was. Whereas therefore I said, that certain princes

have been prophets, you may well think that this is no

greater credit to the ministry, that kings have prophesied,

than it was commendation to the kings themselves, that they

were prophets. And howsoever sometimes they have been

graced with that part of the ministry, (for even Saul some- 1 Sam. 10.
times was among the prophets,) yet might they not intrude hy tid
upon the other functions of the priesthood. And therefore

Saul, the king of Israel, for thrusting himself into the office 1 sam. 13,
of the priest, was himself thrust out of his kingdom. Like- ” '* +
wise when Uzziah, the king of Judah, presuming (his heart 2Chron. 26,
being lift up with pride) to offer incense upon the altar, Pade
which was a function peculiar to the priests, the sons of

Aaron; the Lord not only caused a fearful earthquake’, to

testify His displeasure ; but also presently smote him with a

leprosy, and sequestered him from his regal function. For ‘no Heb. 5. 4.
man,” whatsoever he be, “may take upon him this honour,

but he that is called thereunto of God, as Aaron was.”

M2 Pete il, 5: Y Amos i. 1; Zach. xiv. 5. Joseph.
w Heb. vii. 1; Gen. xiv. 18. Antiq. Jud., lib. ix. c. 10. [§ 4 Op.,
* Eccles. i. 1. tom. il. p. 421, ed. Hudson. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

Eph. 4. 12.

hima:
17.

1 Cor. 16.
10.

Rom. 15. 16.
1 Cor. 3. 9.

Job 33. 23.
2 Cor. 5. 18,
20.

CGR The end of the ministry ; its parts.

I come to the end of the ministry ; which is, to save men’s
souls. Other professions respect the good of this life; as the
magistracy, the maintenance of peace and good order among
the subjects; the art of the physician, the health of his
patient ; the profession of the lawyer, the wealth of his client.
But the end of the ministry alone is the salvation of souls.
For although Christ hath performed so much as is sufficient
for the salvation of all, yet none are actually saved but they
only to whom the benefit of the Messias is communicated.
Now the merits of Christ are applied ordinarily by the
ministry of the word and Sacraments; unto which, for that
cause, the power of salvation is ascribed. They therefore who
enjoy the ministry of the word and Sacraments, let them
acknowledge themselves infinitely bound unto the Lord, who
hath visited them with the favour of His people, and vouch-
safed unto them the peculiar privilege of His visible Church ;
in that He hath not only sent His Son to redeem them, but
also given them those means whereby the benefit of redemp-
tion may be applied unto them.

There remain the parts of the ministry; which are two;
the liturgy or public service of God in the congregation, and
the regiment of the Church. The liturgy hath three parts ;
the preaching of the word, public prayer, and administration
of the Sacraments. In the preaching of the word, as the
duty of the ministry, so also the dignity doth principally
consist : this being the chief work of the ministry, for which
double honour is especially due unto the ministers; yea, the
“ work of the Lord,” in respect whereof the ministers, ‘epoup-
yoovres TO evayyédtov Tov Geod, as the Apostle speaketh, that is,
‘‘ performing the sacred function of preaching the gospel,” are
called, cuvepyoi Tod Geod, the “ co-workers of God.” But the
worthiness of this work may easily appear, if we consider the
excellency, profit, and necessity thereof. For what greater
honour can be vouchsafed to a mortal and sinful man, than
to be the angel or ambassador of God in stead of Christ ;
appointed and sent of God, to reconcile men unto Himself,
to justify them, and to save them? And hereby also appear-
eth the exceeding profit and necessity of the ministry of the
word. The profit, in that by the preaching of the word men
are brought to salvation, and all the degrees thereof. The

The profit and necessity of the ministry of the Word. 61

necessity, in that without it ordinarily men cannot attain to pvowname
salvation, no nor yet to any degree of salvation. For whereas soe ae
there are three degrees of salvation in this life ; our vocation, ““S***_
our justification, our sanctification: what one of these is not
effected by the ministry of the word, and what one of them
is effected ordinarily without it? For whom God hath elected, Rom. 8. 30.
them doth He call; neither shall any be saved (I speak of
such as come to years of discretion) but such as are, or shall
be called. Hence it is that the Church, which is the company
of the elect, is called éx«Ayola, a company of men called.
Now men are called by the ministry of the gospel, seconded 2 Thess. 2.
and made powerful by the Spirit of God. For first, by it our a
minds are enlightened to see our own misery in ourselves, Luke 1.79;
and the infinite mercies of God in the mystery of salvation wat sa
by Christ. Secondly, by it, as by the arm of God, men are Isa. 53, 1.
drawn unto Him that they may turn unto God, and believe Acts 26. 18.
in Christ. Neither is there any means in the world so effec-
tual to work the conversion of a sinner, or to bring him unto
faith in Christ, as the ministry of the word; by which if a
man will not be persuaded, neither will he believe, though an
angel should come from heaven, or a man be raised from the Luke 16.31.
dead. For indeed the ministry of the gospel is “the power of Rom. 1. 16.
God to our salvation.” And although in the world it be con-
temned as a weak and foolish means, yet it is “the good plea- 1 Cor. 1.21.
sure of God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save those
that believe.”

Again, whom God calleth, them He justifieth, acquitting Rom. 8. 30.
them from their sins, and accepting them in Christ as righte-
ous, and as heirs of eternal life. But men are justified by
faith ; and “ faith cometh by hearing the word of God.’ For Rom. 10.
as the Apostle reasoneth, “ How shall they call on Him in whom ie 10.
they have not believed; and how shall they believe in Him !*+-
of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear with-
out a preacher?’ For this cause preachers are said to be
“ministers by whom we believe ;” and being ministers of 1 Cor. 3. 6.
faith, whereby men are justified, they are also said to “jus-
tifyy” men.

Moreover, whom the Lord doth justify by faith, them also

¥ Dan. xii. 3. [In the Hebrew, lite- | most commonly translated in our ver-
rally, ‘‘who make many righteous; sion, ‘‘ who justify many.” ]
or, to use the word by which p'4¥77 is

APPENDIX,
NO, IV.

2 Cor. 5. 17.
John 3. 3.

1 Cor. 4. 15.

i BReta2: 1:
Heb. 5. 12
—14.

Eph. 4. 11.

Matt. 5. 13:

Rom. 10. 8
2 Corposce
Acts 20. 32.
John 17,17.

Col. 1. 6.
Luke 8, 15.

James 1, 21.

1Cor.i3:. 6
—.
1 Tim. 4. 16.

62 Use of the Word wn each step towards salvation.

He doth sanctify by the spirit of regeneration. For “whoso-
ever is in Christ, he is a new creature.” Neither can any man
truly hope to enter into “ the kingdom of heaven, unless he be
born again.” But how should men be born again? by “the
immortal seed,” saith Peter’, ‘‘ which is the word of the living
God ;” by which preachers do beget men unto God. And in
that respect are called spiritual fathers, fathers in the faith ;
because, as Paul speaketh to the Corinthians, “they beget
them by the gospel of Jesus Christ.”” And forasmuch as we
are nourished, as the philosopher saith, by that from which
we are engendered ; the word therefore, as it is the seed of
our spiritual generation, so is it the food of our souls, whereby
we are to be nourished, and to grow up in grace; affording
both “ milk for the new-born,” and “ strong meat” for those
who are better grown in Christ. And therefore, as the minis-
ters be fathers to beget men ; so are they also pastors to feed
them. And whereas sanctification consisteth of two parts, a
“dying unto sin,’ and a “living unto righteousness,” the
ministry of the word is as salt to mortify our corruptions. In
which respect the ministers are called “the salt of the earth.”
And in respect of righteousness habitual it is the word of faith,
the ministry of the spirit, the word of grace, by which we are
sanctified. And as for actual righteousness, it is the fruit of
the word preached, which being sown in the furrows of good
and honest hearts, bringeth forth fruit with patience.

If therefore our vocation, justification, and sanctification,
which are all the degrees of salvation, going between election
and glorification, be all of them wrought by the ministry of
the word, we must acknowledge it worthily to be called the
power of God to our salvation ; and not without good cause the
power of saving men’s souls to be ascribed unto it, and to the
preachers of it, as to the means and instruments under God.
“Receive with meekness,” saith St. James, tov Eugutov Aoyor,
“the word engrafted,” (to wit, by the preachers, who are God’s
planters, 1 Cor. ii.) “ which,” saith he, ‘‘is able to save your
souls.” “Attend to thyself,” saith Paul to Timothy, “and to
doctrine, continue therein; for this doing, thou shalt save both
thyself and them that hear thee.” But to conclude this point
with the oracle of our Saviour Christ, sounding in the ears of

* 1 Pet. i. 23, [81a Adyou C&vTos Ocod. |

Consequent admonitions, to ministers, people, &c. 63

St. Paul at His conversion, from heaven; at which time He ap- vowyame
pearing unto Paul, to make him, as he there saith, a minister of oymsriuw
the gospel, setteth down the end of the ministry in these words, MXS?®*-
which contain the sum of all that hath been said concern- ““*7* *®
ing the preaching of the word. “To open,” saith he, “their Acts 26.18.
eyes, that they may be turned from darkness unto light, and
from the power of Satan unto God,” (there is vocation,) “ that
by faith in Christ” (for so I construe the words, there being a
comma in the Greek text after ywacpévois) “ they may receive
forgiveness of sins” (that is justification) “and inheritance
among them that are sanctified ;:” there is sanctification, and
glorification, and all to be procured by the ministry of the word.

Here therefore by the way divers sorts of men are to be
admonished. First, the ministers; that as they desire the
salvation of their people, whom Christ hath redeemed with
His most precious blood, they would not only be diligent in
preaching, but also be careful so to preach, as that their con-
science may bear them witness, that in their ministry they
truly seek to glorify God in the salvation of the people.
Secondly, the people; that as they tender the eternal salva-
tion of their souls, so they should be affected to the ministry
of the word. “ For the kingdom of heaven” (so is the preaching Matt. 13.
of the gospel called, because it is the principal means of ae
bringing us to God’s kingdom) “is like a treasure, or a pre-
cious pearl, which a man having found, he will sell all that he
hath to procure it.” Thirdly, they that do hinder the preach-
ing of the word; for seeing the word preached is of such
necessity to salvation, they which are an hindrance to the
preaching of the word, do also hinder the salvation of their
brethren, which every Christian is bound by all good means
to advance. Of this kind are they, who being not of the
ministry do get into their hands the livings and possessions
of the Church. For where is want of living, there will be want
of preachers ; where preachers or prophets are wanting, there
prophecy or preaching faileth ; and “ where prophecy faileth, Prov. 29.18.
there the people perish.” The people indeed shall perish in
their sins, but their blood shall be required at thy hands, who
hast been the cause of their spiritual famishment.

Such also are those greedy patrons, or rather latrons of
Church livings, who with Gehazi, sell such things as none but

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

[Matt. 26.

15.)

1 Kings 12.
31; 1 Kings
13. 33.

Isa. 9. 15.

Mark 8. 36.

Phil. 19.

Gal. 4. 15.

64 Hinderers of the Word. Gratitude due to ministers.

Simons will buy ; who with the thief and traitor Judas, be-
tray for guid mihi dabitis, the body of Christ, which is His
Church, into the hand of blind and pharisaical guides ; who
with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, prefer to the ministry the
skirts, or, as the prophet calleth such, the tail of the people.
But these men, as they imitate the practice of Gehazi,
Judas, and Jeroboam, so let them fear their end.

And lastly, such are those ministers, who having either no
will or no skill to feed the people of God with the food of
life, do notwithstanding for the milk and fleece of the flock,
take upon them the charge of souls. But let these and the
former consider, that whereas they ought to be resolved not
to hazard or lose their own souls, though they might gain
the whole world; they to gain, not the whole world, but the
tithes of some one parish, (which are as nothing in compari-
son of the world,) do hazard not their own souls alone, but
the souls of the people, whom they deprive of the principal
ordinary means of their salvation.

But to return to my purpose: have you by your own expe-
rience found the ministers to have been the means under God
of your vocation, justification, sanctification, which are the
necessary forerunners of salvation ? then, I dare say, you will
confess that to be true, which Paul writing to Philemon for-
beareth to speak ; that you owe even your own selves unto
them ; and that you ought to be affected to them, as the
Galatians were to St. Paul, who giveth this testimony of
them, that they were ready (if it had been possible) to pull
out their own eyes to do him good. But if you be more
ready to pull out their eyes, than to do them any good, it is
a manifest argument, that as yet you are not sanctified, not
justified, not called; and therefore not to be saved, unless
these graces shall hereafter be wrought in you by the ministry
of the word. Which benefits if you do but look for at the
ministers’ hands, you cannot but honour and reverence them
in the mean time. But if you neither have these graces, nor
hope for any, we must count ourselves blessed, when for our
calling and the discharge of our duty, we are of such persons
hated and reviled.

Thus much I thought good to speak of preaching the word.
Now are we briefly to intreat of invocation, and so of the

Ministers intercessors, and dispensers of the Sacraments. 65

rest. For as in the preaching of the word, the minister is powName
the Lord’s ambassador to His people, so in public prayer he Gas
is an orator, and as it were an intercessor for the people unto ““S***
God: in which respect Chrysostom saith*, that the minister
“ performeth an embassage unto God, not only for his own
people, but also for the whole world, as if he were an univer-
sal father having care of all.””, And Nazianzen® acknowledgeth
it to be no small honour to be preferred “before others in
nearness unto God, and to receive Wuydav mpoctaciav, Kat
feottelav Ocod Kai avOpwray, a presidentship of souls, and
a mediation between God and men;” by which they stand, as
Moses once did, in the breach, and for which, as the prophets Ps. 106. 23.
were wont, so may godly ministers now, be worthily called
the horsemen and chariots of Israel. 2 Kings 2.
she 12; 13. 14.
I come to the Sacraments, whereof the ministers also are
dispensers. For as in respect of the word, which is as it were
God’s treasury, the ministers are His treasurers; so in respect
of the Sacraments, which are the seals of God, the seals of Rom. 4. 11,
that righteousness which is by faith, they are the keepers of
the Lord’s seals, whereby the people of God are assured, not
of an earthly patrimony, but of an eternal kingdom in heaven.
If therefore it be a great honour (as it is indeed) to be the
lord-keeper of the king’s seal, which notwithstanding hath
use but in temporal affairs, what shall we think of their
function, who are the keepers of the heavenly King’s seals ;
which also serve for the confirmation of spiritual blessings in
heavenly things?
Having spoken of the liturgy, we are now to entreat of the
regiment of the Church. For to the ministers the Church,
which is the spouse of Christ, is committed, that having
espoused her against the marriage day, which is the day of
judgment, they may present her unto Christ the bridegroom, 2 Cor, 11. 2.
as a pure virgin and undefiled. In which sense Nazianzen °
calleth the minister vuuppaywyov Tav WuxXav Kal TpopvyicTopa ;
and Chrysostom? thus describeth him, 6 tod ypuotod THY vup-

@ S. Chrys. De Sacerdot., lib. vi.c.4. -ywdéonw.—S. Greg. Naz. Orat. ii. Apo-
[Op., tom. i. p. 424, A, quoted above, loget. § 91. Op., tom. i. p. 55, B.]
vol. ii. p. 216, g.] e {S. Greg. Naz. ibid., § 77. p. 49,
b [imép tobs &Adous maxp@ yevérOau EE. }
7H mpos Oedy eyyirnti, d€Eacba Wuxev 4 De Sacerdot., lib. iii, c. 6. [Op.,
mpooractay, K.7.A. ove aopadres elyar tom. i. p. 385, B.]
HICKES. K

APPENDIX,
NO. IV.

Att ak Ze
Luke 12. 42.

Isa. 22. 22.

Matt, 16.
19,

John 20.23.

Matt. 18.
18.

Matt. 6. 10.

66 As having the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

diy Kataxocpeiv Nayov, “he whose office it is to adorn the
spouse of Christ.” And forasmuch as the Church in the
Scriptures is also called the house of God, therefore tlie
ministers who are set over the Church are called ofxovopoi,
that is, stewards of God set over His household. And where-
as the authority of a steward is signified by the keys com-
mitted unto him, our Saviour Christ therefore, to His stewards
hath committed keys, “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;”
that both by preaching the gospel and by ecclesiastical dis-
cipline, they might open to some the gates of heaven, and
shut them to others: that to them which believe and re-
pent, they might pronounce the sentence of absolution, and
might denounce damnation against the unfaithful and im-
penitent ; that they might loose the one, and bind the other.
Which their authority He hath ratified with most gracious
promises, assuring them on His word, which is infallible, that
“Whose sins they remit, they shall be remitted, and whose
sins they retain, they shall be retained.” And again, “ What-
soever they bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever they loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven.”
Wherefore, as by the work of their ministry men being there-
by converted, the will of God is done as in heaven, so also
upon earth, according to our daily prayer; so by the autho-
rity committed unto them, it is done, as in the earth, so also
in heaven. Than which, what authority is more glorious
upon the earth? the magistrates indeed, having the keys of
an earthly kingdom, have also power to loose and to bind the
bodies of their subjects, and to commit the same to a jailor
or executioner. But the ministers having the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, have power to bind and loose the souls
of men, and to deliver the obstinate to Satan ; and what they
do upon earth, is ratified in heaven. And this is that which
Jerome saith *, the ministers “ having the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, do judge after a sort before the day of judgment.”

Hitherto the dignity of the ministry hath been absolutely
declared, and without comparison. But if into the balance
of comparison we shall put the ministers and other men,

* [Qui claves regni ccelorum ha- Heliodorum de vita eremitica. [Op.,
bentes, quodammodo ante diem judicii tom. i. col. 33, D.]
judicant.—S. Hieron. Epist, xiv.] Ad

Ministers compared with others, as men. 67

I had almost in some respect added the angels, we shall vowxame
find that to be true, which Ambrosef hath averred, that “ the oes
dignity of bishops can scarcely be matched with any com-—““~
parisons.” We will therefore compare ministers with other

men ; first, as they are men; secondly, as they are Chris-

tians; thirdly, as they are honourable.

Men by nature are “the children of wrath,”’ and enemies Eph. 2. 3.
of God; the ministers are ambassadors sent from God to Aes 5. 18,
reconcile them unto Him. Men naturally sit in darkness" *
and in the shadow of death, knowing no more of God than
serves to leave them without excuse: the ministers are “ the
light of the world,’ who are sent to “enlighten” them, to Matt. 5. 14.
“open their eyes,” to bring “them out of darkness into peer pe
light,” and to “ guide their feet into the way of peace.” Men
naturally are such as Ezechiel describeth, wallowing in their Ezech. 16.
own pollutions, “not washed with water, nor seasoned with '
salt ’’ the ministers are “the salt of the earth,” ordained of Matt. 5. 13.
God to season men, and to “ sanctify them with the word John 17. 17.
of truth,” and to wash them with the laver of regeneration.

Men naturally are dead in sin, neither can they live unto Eph.2. 1.
God, unless they be born again: ministers are spiritual

fathers, who by preaching the gospel “ beget men” unto God, ! Cor. 4.15.
Men naturally are without faith, void of the spirit, destitute

of grace: preachers are ‘ ministers by whom they believe ;” 1 Cor. 3. 5.
ministers of the spirit, ministers of grace. Men naturally 2 Cor.
being the bond-slaves of sin, and captives of Satan, are by”

him as the Gergesenes’ swine carried headlong into mare Luke 8. 33.
mortuum, the dead sea of perdition; the ministers are by oyaq. 91.
Spatial galled “saviours, and by Christ Himself, the “fishers Luke 5. 10.
of men,” Cwypobvtes, catching with the net of the word Matt. 12.
Tous eCwypnévous, those who were caught of the devil; bring: , seen 5 a0)
ing them out of the power of Satan into God’s kingdom ; Acts 26. 18.
out of the slavery of sin into the glorious liberty of God’s
children; out of the state of damnation, as it were the uni-

versal deluge, into the state of grace and salvation, as it

were into the ark of Noah. You see then how the com-

parison stands between ministers and other men.

.
f Honor et sublimitas Episcopalis spurium inter Op. S. Ambros., tom. ii.

nullis potest comparationibus adequari. App. p. 859, B, quoted above, vol. ii
—De Dignitate Sacerd., cap. 2. [opus pp. 224, 225, h.]

68 Compared with others, as Christians ; and as honourable,

arrenpix. Let us therefore compare them with others, as they be

“Christians, and such as shall be saved by Christ. Other
John 10._ Christians are but the sheep of Christ; ministers are also
ate ae pastors or shepherds, to whom Christ the chief pastor hath
me 1Xet- committed His sheep to be guided and fed. Other Chris-
20. 28. tians are but the plants in the Lord’s garden: ministers are

ee also the Lord’s gardeners, appointed of God to plant and to
Rhy a: water them. Other Christians are but living stones in the
1 Cor. 3, 9, temple of God, which is His Church: ministers are also
Eph. 4.12. God’s builders, ordained of Christ, mpds oixodopuiyv Tod

cépatos avtod, “for the edifying of His body,” which is

His Church. Others finally are but the family, and as it

were the household servants of Christ: the ministers are
atts ie the stewards, whom the Lord hath set over His family, to
45; Luke give to every one, which be of the household of faith, their
soca ovToueérpiov, “ portion of food” in due season.

Out of these two comparisons it doth evidently appear,
that no man whatsoever he be, whether a true Christian, or
but a natural man, hath just cause to despise the ministers
of God. For in that the true Christian hath attained to
grace, he hath obtained it by the help of the ministry,
whereby he was reconciled unto God, enlightened with the
truth, begotten unto God, &c. And the natural man, who
wanteth grace, is also to receive it ordinarily by the help of
the minister, if ever he have it. And therefore those who
vilify and contemn the ministers of God in respect of their
calling, do manifestly bewray themselves to be vile and con-
temptible persons, who neither have any grace, nor yet
desire any.

But now let us compare the ministers with other men, as
they are honourable ; and first with all jointly, and together.
For if we will make a comparison of all honours in general,
we must also take a view both of their burden in this life,
and reward in the life to come. For the first, I have shewed
before, not ouly that honos and onus do always go together ;
but also that according to the weight of the burden, such is
the height of the honour. Now every man is ready to lay
load upon the ministers, and amongst all callings to attribute
the greatest burden and charge unto them ; by which reason
they must be fain to ascribe unto them the greatest honour.

as to their burden now, and glory hereafter. 69

For they are pastors, not of men’s bodies, as magistrates are, powname
but of their souls; and they bear all men’s burdens, as Basie
Chrysostom saith, and they watch for other men’s souls, “NST Y
insomuch that if any perish through their negligence, the
blood of those which do perish, shall, be required at their Ezek. 33.8.
hands. How weighty this burden is, it will easily appear,
if we shall consider how heavy every private man’s own
burden will be to bear in the day of the Lord. For the Gai. 6. 5.
ministers’ own burden may seem to be heavier than others.
First, because the Lord requireth greater matters in them
than in others. Secondly, because the same sins, which in
other men are less offences, in them are esteemed greater
faults. Simple fornication, which in others was after a sort
salved by marriage, in the priest’s daughter was punished Lev. 21. 9.
with death. Thirdly, because the priest was to offer as great Ley. 4, 3,
a sacrifice for his own sins, as for the sins of the whole”
people. But the minister must not only bear his own
burden, but as upon Aaron the names of the twelve tribes Exod. 28.
were imposed, so the ministers are to bear the charge of ~”
their flock; and of that flock which Christ hath redeemed
with His blood, and therefore was more dear and precious Acts 20. 28.
to Him than His own most precious blood. But what use
are we to make of this? shall we therefore depress the
ministers by contempt, whom we oppress with our burdens?
nay, rather as we press them down with our burden, so let
us exalt them with honour. It is the exhortation of the
Holy Ghost, Heb. xii.: “ Obey them that have the oversight Heb. 13.17
of you, and submit yourselves unto them; for they watch
for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they
may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unpro-
fitable for you.”

But as the minister’s charge is greater than others in this
life ; so having discharged his duty, he shall have a greater
weight of glory in the life to come. For that wise and
faithful steward, mentioned Matt. xxiv., shall not only re- Matt. 24.45.
ceive blessedness for his reward, or that incorruptible crown
of glory which the Holy Ghost hath promised unto them ;
but also having saved both himself and those that hear 1Tim. 4.16.
him, of whom he may say in the day of judgment, “ Behold,
here I am, and the children which the Lord hath given

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

2 Cor. 1. 14.

Apoe. 1. 20.

Dan. 12. 3.

Matt. 24.47.

70 Christian Ministers compared with parents,

me,” (for whom the minister begetteth through his gospel
unto God, they shall be, as Paul saith, his rejoicing in the
day of the Lord,) he shall be preferred above others in hap-
piness. For good ministers, as they have been stars in the
Church militant, to enlighten others with the truth; so in
the Church triumphant, they shall shine as stars .in the
firmament for ever and ever. And this is that, which in
the place before cited, the Lord promiseth to the wise and
faithful steward, that He will make him ruler over all [is
goods. Upon which words, an ancient and learned expo-
sitor writeth to this effect; “ The greatest amongst all is the
priestly dignity, if a man keep it without blemish. For if the
Lord above all His works esteem the souls of men most
precious,” (for them He hath redeemed with His own blood,)
“it is not to be marvelled, if He set him over all, who brings
unto Him the gain of souls.”

Now are we to compare the ministers with those peculiar
sorts of men, to whom the Lord hath vouchsafed honour.
And these are either private in the family, or public out of
the family, in the Church and commonwealth. Those that
are to be honoured in the family, are our parents, to whom
great honour is due by God’s commandment, but not so
great as to the ministers. For, from thy parents, as the
instruments of God, thou hast thy generation; from the
ministers, as the instruments of the Holy Ghost, thy re-
generation ; by thy parents thou art a man, by the ministers
a Christian; thy parents by mortal seed begat thee unto
this world, the minister by immortal seed begetteth thee
unto the world to come; by thy parents is sin and corrup-
tion derived to thee from the first Adam, by the ministers
justification and freedom from sin is communicated unto
thee from the second Adam. Finally, thy natural parents
are fathers in the flesh, but the ministers are fathers in the
Spirit. Both then, as you see, are parents; but the spiritual
fathers are, as Chrysostom saith", rypwwrTepot Tov TaTépor,

* [Omnium quidem bonorum magna
est gratia, inter omnes autem maxima
est sacerdotalis dignitas, si quis eam
immaculate custodiat. Nam si super
omnia opera sua pretiosiores existimat
Deus animas hominum, quanto magis
credibile est, ut super omnia bona sua
consUtuat eum, qui confert Deo lucrum

animarum.] Auctor imperfecti operis
apud Chrysost. in Matt. xxiv.—[ Hom.
li. ap. S. Chrys. Op., ad cale. tom. vi.
p. ecxvi. |

h §. Chrys. de Sacerdot., lib. iii. cap.
5. [Op., tom. i. p. 384, A, B; quoted
above, vol. ii. pp. 821, 322, g. |

with the Levitical Priesthood. rill

“more honourable than fathers.’ And “so great is the powname
difference,” saith he’, “of them both, as of the life present, oinsrian
and the life to come; for these beget thee into this life, they ““S™*.
into the other.” Wherefore leaving our natural parents, we
will compare them with another sort of spiritual fathers,
which is now ceased ; I mean the Levitical priests, and chiefly
the high-priest, whose dignity appeared both in his office and
in his attire. For his office he was, as it were, a mediator
betwixt God and man; and therein, because he represented
the Messias, he was superior not only to other men, but to
the angels themselves. And his attire, which the Lord ap- Exoa. 28.
pointed unto him, was answerable thereunto, signifying x
person excelling the condition of other men: imsomuch that
as histories* do record Alexander the Great coming with his
army against Jerusalem, when the high-priest did meet him
arrayed with his sacred and magnificent attire, he dis-
mounted himself, and in the high-priest worshipped God,
who, as he said, had in a dream appeared unto him in that
habit. But what is this to our ministry ? As an argument
of comparison from the less to the greater. For if the
ministry of the law was so excellent, what shall we think of
the ministry of the gospel, which, as the Apostle sheweth, 2 Cor. 3.7
2 Cor. iii., is much more excellent and glorious than it? The —
same doth our Saviour seem to testify, when having extolled
John Baptist above all the priests and prophets that went be-
fore him, as being more than a prophet, than whom a greater
had not risen amongst the sons of women ; notwithstanding
he preferreth every faithful minister in the kingdom of God, Matt. 11.11.
that is to say, in the Church of Christ, before him.

Now we are to enter into comparison with the civil magis-
trate. Wherein the fathers! indeed have included also the
sovereign magistrate, affirming, that the ministers excel
princes, “as far as gold is better than lead,” “as heaven

iS. Chrys. de Sacerdot., lib. iii. c. 6.
kal TOTOUTOY GupoTEepwy Tb did.popor, Boor
Tis Tapovons Kal Tis weAAovons CwiAs.
oi wey yap eis TavTHY, of Se cis exelyny
yevv@o..—[ Id. ibid., D, quoted above,
wom, p: 215, f..|

* Joseph. Antiquit.
cap. 8. [§ 4. Op., tom. ii. p.
Hudson. }

Jud., lib. ii

503, ed,

" Ambros. [ Pseudo-Ambros. de Dig-
nitate Sacerdotali, ¢. 2., Op. S. Ambros.,
tom. ii. App. p. 359, B, quoted above,
vol. il. p. 225, h.] Chrysost. [de Sacer-
dotio, lib. iii. c. 5, Op., We i. p. 383,
D, quoted above, vol. ii. o21,. 2.
Nazianz., { Orat. xvii. § 8. on tom. i.
p- 328, A, quoted below, p. 78, g. |

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

Ps. 40. 13.

72 Ministers compared with civil authorities ;

surpasseth the earth, as the soul excelleth the body ;” and
such like speeches are frequent among them, which the
papists abuse to the maintenance of the pope’s supremacy
over princes. For whereas the fathers speak of the dignity
and spiritual excellency of the ministry above all other
callings, the papists understand their speeches of power and
external authority. And again, whereas their commenda-
tions are given of the calling in general, either of all minis-
ters, or at least of all bishops, whom the fathers notwith-
standing acknowledged to be subject to their princes; the
papists apply them as peculiar to their lord god the pope™,
whom they style the king of kings, and the lord of lords.
But howsoever the comparison of bishops with princes, used
by the fathers, may seem capable of good construction, in
respect of spiritual excellency and dignity celestial, yet
methinks it should beseem the modesty of a loyal subject,
in reverence due to that supereminent function, to exempt
the royal majesty of sovereign princes from this comparison;
not only in respect of external power and authority, (in
regard whereof we do freely profess that ministers are and
ought to be subject to their sovereign, and that to the king
is committed of God a sovereign or supreme authority in all
causes and over all persons as well ecclesiastical as civil,) but
also in respect of external excellency and glory. For as the
whole Church, the spouse of Christ, so the ministers espe-
cially, are glorious within, Ps. xlv. And as Christ’s kingdom
was not of this world, so is not their excellency worldly, nor
their dignity carnal. For the ministry, as Chrysostom saith”,
“is indeed executed upon the earth, but it is to be numbered
in the order of heavenly things:” to other magistrates we

m Extravagantes Joannis xxili., tit.
14. De verborum sign., cap. iv. Cum
inter. in glossa. [The passage refer-
red to is part of a gloss of Zenzeli-
nus on the Extravagantes of John xxii.
c. iv. ad fin. ap. Corp. Jur. Can., tom.
lii.: “ Credere Dominum Deum nos-
trum Papam conditorem dicte decret. et
istius, sic non potuisse statuere prout
statuit, hereticum censeretur.’’ In the
folio editions of the Canon Law up to
the year 1612, the words run as above.
The word Deum, however, is not found
in later editions, e. g. Lyons, 1624, and

1671, and it is alleged (see Apologia
pro R. P. Henrico Garneto Anglo,
p. 138. Colon. 1610, quoted Brit. Mag.,
vol. xiv. p. 425) that the word Deum
was originally inserted by mistake, that
it does not occur in the original MS. in
the Vatican, nor in the earliest editions.
But see the note in Bp. Jewel’s Works,
vol. ii. p. 195. Oxford, 1848. ]

n 7 yop lepwovyn TeAEIT aL meV em! TIS
vis, Tati d& emovpavlwy exer mpay-
padtrwyv.—s. Chrys. de Sacerd., lib. iii. ¢.
4. [Op., tom. i. p. 382, B, quoted above,
vol. ii. p. 259, u. ]

Contrast of power in things earthly and heavenly. 73

say with Nazianzen°, dpyouev yap Kat avtoi, “we also are
rulers ; yea, I will add,” saith he, “that we have a greater and
more perfect rule, unless you will say, that the spirit must
give place to the flesh, or heavenly things to earthly.” The
judgment-seat of the magistrate is placed on the earth, and
he only determineth earthly affairs; but the throne of the
minister, who exerciseth heavenly judgments, is, as Chrys-
ostom saith?, “in heaven;”’ and his sentence, pronounced
on earth, is executed in heaven. The magistrate, as Peter
saith, is, «ticts avOpwrivn, “an ordinance human,” or ap-
pertaining to men; but the ministry is @e?a xtlows, “an or-
dinance divine,” or appertaining to God. Or as Jehosaphat
distinguisheth them; the one for the king’s affairs, and the
other for the business of the Lord. Both indeed are God’s
ministers, but the minister, as Procopius saith4, Augustius est
sortitus ministerium, “hath obtained a more worthy minis-
try.” For the magistrate is conversant in external matters,
that concern the world; but the minister is employed in
spiritual things, appertaining to God; the one is the minister
of God’s external judgment, the other of His word, and judg-
ments spiritual. Both also may be called the pastors of the
people; but the magistrates are pastors of their bodies, the
ministers of their souls. The one may say with the Roman
magistrate, J lictor, liga manus, deliga ad palum; or, as ours
do use to write, capias corpus, take his body, or habeas
corpus, having authority only to bind the body; the other
may say with Paul, ¢radatur Satane, “let him be delivered
to Satan,” or let him be anathema maranatha, that is, “ ac-
cursed until the coming of the Lord,” as having authority to
bind the soul: the one procureth the temporal good of the
body, the other the eternal salvation of the soul. The armour,
warfare, and munitions of the one, are corporal; of the
other, “spiritual, mighty through God, to the overthrowing
of strong holds'.” The one preserveth us from external foes,

° mpocOnow 5¢ bri, Kal Thy pelCova
kal TeAcwTépay apxhy' ) Sel Td mvedua
troxwpicat TH capri, kal tots ynivots
7a emoupdvia.—[S. Greg. Naz. Orat.
xvii. ad cives Nazianz § 8. Op., tom. i.
p. 323, A.]

P S.Chrys., tom. i. de verbis Esaiz,
Hom. v.[Op., tom. vi. p. 182, E; quoted

HICKES,

above, vol. ii. p. 322, h.]

4 (Sacerdote rex inferior, eo enim
augustius est sortitus ministerium, &c.
—Procopius Gaz. in Numer., Com-
ment. in Octateuch. Latine, p. 428.
Tigur. 1555. |

' dwara TE OegG mods Kabatpeow
dxupwydray,

DOWNAME
ON THE
CHRISTIAN

MINISTRY.

1 Pet..2: 13.

2 Chron. 19.
1k

1@or; 15.09

IiGors 16:
92

ake

2 Cor. 10. 4,

APPENDIX,
NO. IV.

Deut. 33. 8.

Exod. 30.
30, 32.

74 Spiritual rulers higher than temporal ones.

who are but flesh and blood; the other warreth not with
flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, deliver-
ing men from most dangerous enemies, both within them,
that is, their own sins and corruptions; and without them,
that is, the world, and the prince of this world, the devil.
And therefore in this respect also, as the prophets were
wont, so may the ministers now, be called the horsemen
and chariots of Israel. Wherefore if heaven and heavenly
things surpass the earth and earthly affairs; if the soul and
the eternal salvation both of body and soul, are to be pre-
ferred before the body and temporal good thereof; if the
enemies of the soul be more dangerous than the foes of the
body, then can we not deny, but that the ministry in dignity
doth excel the magistracy. Itis the conclusion of Chrysostom :
“the ministry,” saith he’, “so far surpasseth the magistracy,
as the spirit excelleth the flesh.’ And not to stand any
longer in particular comparison with the several sorts of
men, this may be avouched in general; that as the “ minis-
try is of all good things among men the most excellent,” as
Ignatius saitht, so the minister is vouchsafed the greatest
favour among men; so that he may not unworthily be called
by a special prerogative, as Moses in his speech to God,
calleth the priest, ish chasideca", virum quem benignitate pro-
sequeris, as if the minister were among men the chief object
of God’s bounty and favour, and as you would say, the
favourite of God. But I pray you what meaneth that speech
of God to Moses, Exod. xxx., where having commanded him,
ver. 30, to anoint the priests with the sacred oil, in the
82nd verse he forbiddeth to anoint man’s flesh with it? “How
shall we untie this knot,” saith Procopius’, writing upon
that place, “ priests must be anointed with holy oil, but men
may not? Surely,” saith he, “you must remember that the
priesthood or ministry surpasseth the height of all human
excellency.” For ministers, though they be men, yet are

S De Sacerd., lib. iii. cap. 1. fepwadvn v [Cum precepisset sacerdotes illo
ToTOUTOY avwTépw THs BactAelas éoryn- oleo consecrandos, continuo addit; caro
kev, Ooov mvetiuatos kal capxkds to humana non eo. ungat. Quo pacto
pecov.—[Op., tom. i. p. 381, A. ] illum scripture solvemus nodum?

t lepwavvn yap éott TO awavtwy ey Memineris sacerdotium excedere omne
avOparos ayo0ev davaBeBnxds.—[S. humanum fastigium, quod Christi
Ignat. F'pist. interpol. ad Smyrn., c. 9. supra naturam particeps est.—Proco-
ap. Patr. Apost., tom. i. p. 87.] pius Gaz. Comment. in Exodum, p.

YU CFPON ws] 308. Tigur. 1555.]

May be compared with angels. 75

they not as others, men of the world, but as the Scrip- vowxame
ture usually calleth them, men of God. To conclude, if csmacas
the charge of the ministry be, as Chrysostom speaketh, “S*°**_
onus angelorum humeris formidandum, “a burden which the
shoulders of angels may shrink at ;” and yet God enableth
those men whom He calleth to bear this burden, whereunto
none in themselves are able; it cannot be denied, but those
whom the Lord calleth to the ministry, He advanceth above
the condition of other men; calling them, as to a charge,
so also to an honour, which might seem to become angels
rather than men.
Wherefore ceasing to compare ministers with other men,
let us consider, whether they may not be compared with the
blessed angels: for as in some things they are like unto
them, so in other things they seem to have some pre-emin-
ence above them. Like in this, that as the angels, so also
the ministers are “ sent forth into the ministry for their sake, Heb. 1. 14.
which shall be heirs of salvation.” In which regard the
ministers are often called in the Scriptures angels, and
the angels cvvdovnor, “ the fellow-servants” of the ministers. Apoc. 19.
Superior they seem to be in respect of their embassage, and '”* ** *
of their spiritual authority. The embassage of the ministers
is not simple ayyed/a, a message; but evayyédvov, “ the evan-
gel,” into which the angels themselves do desire, as Peter 2 Pet. 1.12;
speaketh, mapaxiryat, that is, “stooping down,” as it were, John 20. 5.
“to look,” and to behold. The law indeed was published by Acts 7. 53;
the ministry of angels, but the gospel by Christ and His Gal. 3. 19.
ministers. Now the ministry of the gospel is far more excel- 2 Cor. 3.
lent than that of the law, and the contempt thereof more
grievous. Neither hath the Lord, as appeareth by the story Heb. 2.2,3.
of Cornelius, committed the preaching of the gospel to angels; Acts 10. 6.
but to His ministers, whom we are bound to hear and to re-
ceive, not only as angels of God, but even as Christ Jesus. — Gal, 4. 14.
And as touching their authority: “to the ministers,” saith
Chrysostom *, “being conversant on earth, is committed the
administration of things in heaven; and they have received
such an authority as God never communicated to the angels :”

* §. Chrys. de Sacerd., lib. iii. cap.5. apxaryyéAots 25wKev 6 Oeds.—[Op., tom.
7a €v ovpavois Stokely emetpamnoay, Kat i. p. 383, B.]
etovolav crafBov, Av obre ayytruis obre

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

Matt. 18.18.

John 20, 23,

Gal. 4. 14.

76 Their authority to remit sins.

for to which of the angels hath God said at any time, which
He hath said to His ministers, “ Verily, I say unto you,
whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound in
heaven ; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.” And again, “ Whose sins ye forgive, they
shall be forgiven ; and whose sins you retain, they shall be
retained.” On which words Theophylact’s annotation is
something hyperbolical, but in a qualified sense, true ;
“ Mark me,” saith he, “ the dignity of priests, that it is di-
vine; for it belongeth to God to forgive sms: wherefore you
must honour them as God.” As if in plainer terms he had
said, ‘the authority of forgiving sins is divine; which being
communicated after a sort to ministers, in that they pro-
nouncing the forgiveness of sin, according to their commis-
sion, the sins indeed are forgiven; their authority also may
be said to be divine. Wherefore they bearing the image of
God’s authority before men, in forgiving or retaining sins,
you are to honour and obey them as God, whose vicegerents
they be.’ The like hath Ignatius’; ‘“ Be subject,” saith he,
“ unto your bishop, as unto the Lord.” And again, “ rever-
ence your bishop as Christ.” Neither is this any more than is
commended unto us in the example of the Galatians, who re-
ceived the Apostle “as an angel of God, yea, as Jesus Christ.”

Hitherto I have commended the office of the ministry,
both absolutely and by way of comparison; now I am to pro-
pound the honourable titles which are given to the ministers
of the word, whereof great store might be produced out of
the fathers, but I will content myself with a few. Chrysostom*
therefore calleth ministers the “vicars, or vicegerents of
Christ ;” in which title, though common to all ministers in
a right sense, the vicar of Rome (though lifting up himself
above all that is called God) doth chiefly glory. Origen?

Y okomet uot TOY fepewy Thy akiay, OTL
Geta €or, Ocod yap Td adievat GuapTias,
ovTws avTov’s Tiuntéov ws Oedv.—Theo-
phylact. Comm. in Joan. c. xx. [Op.,
tom. ii. p. 764, B.]

*7@ émokdr@ trotdccecbc. —[S.
Ignat. Epist. interp. ad Trall., ¢. ii. ap.
Patr. Apost., p. 60.] &s 7@ xvplw [see
vol. ii. p. 299} aidetobe thy éricxomoy
tuav as xpordv.—| Ibid., c. vii. p. 63;
quoted above, vol. ii. p. 300, d.]

a [Sacerdotes Christi vicarios esse
Christi. ] auct. oper. imperfect. Hom. 17.
in Matt. vii. [ap. S. Chrys. Op., ad cale.
tom. vi. p. 1xxxvii.]

6 In Matt. tract. 5. [Sacerdotes
autem rationabiliter possunt dici ec-
clesiz oculus, quoniam et specula-
tores habentur. Vet. Interp. Origen.
in Matt., tom. xiii. § 24. Op., tom. iii.
603. These words are added by the
translator, but Origen’s comment (on

Honourable titles given them in Scripture. 77

calleth them “ the eyes of the Church :” Ambrose*, “the cap- vownam:
tains and governors of Christ’s flock :”’ Augustine’, “ the cristae
defenders of the true faith, and subduers of errors: Nazi- “ST
anzen likewise, tpootdtas THs adnOeias®, “the presidents of
truth,” wuyav tauias, weyaxvoets', “the glorious guardians of
men’s souls; the foundations of the world; the light of life,
and pillars of the Christian faith.’ Bernard and others,
prelatos, as being preferred before other men.

But omitting the writings of the fathers, let us search the
Scriptures, and enquire what titles or attributes of honour
are by the Holy Ghost assigned to ministers. And [1.] first
we will begin with this very title of “ God’s ministers,” being
a title common to them not only with princes, but also with Rom. 13. 4.
Christ, who is called the “minister of circumcision,” that is, Rom. 15. 8.
of the Jews.

2. They are called sjyovmevor, “ rulers.” Heb. 13. 17.

3. By a special prerogative they are termed, not only in
the Old Testament, but also in the New, “men of God.” Piles. Gis
1m, 90. .

A, Suvepyol tod Oeod, “co-workers of God,” who hath so 1 Cor. 3. 9.
honoured His ministers, that He communicateth His own
work unto them. Hence it is that in the Scriptures they
are said to remit sins, to beget men unto God, and to save
them, &c.
5. Oixovouot Tov Oeod, “the stewards of God,” to whom Titus 1. 7.
are committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
6. “The ambassadors of God,” and that, “in the stead of Haggai 1.
Christ.” 2 Cor 8.20,
7. “The angels of the Lord,” and “angels of the churches;” Apoc. 1. 2,

: 3; Judges
and therefore as angels to be received. 2° jee
8. “The chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof ;” 2: ”-
ye a Job 33. 23;
that is, the strength and stay of the Church, which is the Gal. 4, 14.
2 Kings 2.
Israel of God. ae

9. “Stars,” because as in this life they shine before others, Apoc. 1. 20.

Matt. xviii. 8,9) seems to imply that _ lib.iv.c. 4. § 6. [Op., tom. iii. p. 66, D.]

he understood the clergy by the ‘‘eye’’ ¢ [S Greg. Naz., Orat. ii. Op., tom.
of the body. ] i. p. 48, C.]
¢ [Duces et rectores gregis Christi. £ [& Wuxa@v taula pmeyanvdces....

—Pseudo-Ambros. de Dign. Sacerd. & kédcpoio OuebAa, Blov dos, epua
Op. S. Ambr., tom. ii. App. col. 359, Adyo.o. Lux vite, fidei columen, fun-
08 damina mundi.—lId., Carm. ii. 1. 13.

4 [Defensor rectz fidei ac debellator ad Episcopos, 2, 5. Op., tom. ii. p.
erroris. |}—S, Aug. de Doctr. Christian, 824.]

APPENDIX.
NO. IV.

Dan. 12. 3.

Matt. 25.
8, 9.

1 Cor. 4. 15:

Mal. 4.5;
Luke 1. 16.
Acts 26. 18.
Dan. 12. 3;
John, 20.
Ze

Matt. 5. 13.

1 Pet 2.25:
John 1. 9.
Matt. 1. 21.
Eph. 4. 11;
Heb. 13.17.
Matt. 5. 14:
Obad. 21,
1 Tim. 4.
16; Rom.
11. 14.

78 Works proper to God ascribed to His ministers.

with the light of doctrine and good example; so in the life
to come they shall shine as the stars in glory.

These are honourable titles, but you shall hear more glori-
ous: for the Holy Ghost not content to have honoured the
ministers with these, ascribeth also unto them such titles and
effects as most properly belong unto God. For albeit we
have but one Father, and one teacher, who is in the heavens ;
notwithstanding the ministers are called in the Scriptures,
not only doctors, but also fathers, and such fathers as are
more to be feared than princes, more to be honoured than
fathers, as Chrysostom speaketh &. For whom they beget, they
beget them sons of God, heirs of heaven, and co-heirs with
Christ. And although this very work of regenerating or be-
getting men to God, be the proper work of the Holy Ghost,
yet the ministers also are said by the gospel to beget men
unto God; likewise to convert men unto God, to open their
eyes, to turn them from darkness unto light, and from the
power of Satan unto God; to justify men, and to remit their
sins, to season them as salt, that they do not putrify in their
corruptions, are the proper works of the blessed Trinity ; and
yet notwithstanding all and every of them are ascribed to the
ministers of God. Moreover, it is proper unto Christ to be
the pastor of our souls, the ight of the world, the Saviour of
His brethren; and yet the ministers also are called pastors,
not of men’s bodies, but of their souls; the light of the world;
saviours of their brethren; to whom, as the imstruments of
God, power of saving is ascribed. Wherefore to conclude;
if the ministers were ordained to supply the room of Christ,
and to be the ambassadors of God in His stead; if kings and
princes, yea if the King of princes have executed this function ;
if the proper end of their ministry be the salvation of souls ;
if in regard of preaching they be the mouth of God to His
people; in regard of prayer, the mouth of the people unto
God; in respect of the Sacraments, the keepers of God’s
seals; as touching the government of the Church, the
guardians of Christ’s body, to whom are committed the keys
of the kingdom of heaven; if compared to other men, they

S ode apxdvTwy udvoy oBepadrepor 84, A; see above, vol. ii. pp. 321, 322,

o
384:
5 \ /
GAAG Kal maTépev Timmrepor.— De g.]

Sacerd., lib. iii. cap. 6. [Op., tom. i. p.

Conclusion and consequence of the argument. 79

be the children of wrath, as all by nature are; these, recon-
cilers to God; they, sitting in darkness; these, the light of
the world; they, putrifying in their corruption; these, the
salt of the earth; they, dead in sin; these, begetting them
anew, that they may live to God ; they, bond-slaves of Satan ;
these, sent+to bring them out of the power of Satan unto
God: if to other Christians, they, be sheep; these, pastors ;
they, plants; these, planters; they, stones; these, builders ;
they, household servants; these, stewards of God’s house: if
to other honourable personages in general, the ministers do
so much excel others in honour, as their charge is greater in
this life, and their reward more glorious in the world to come ;
if in special, the spiritual fathers be in honour to be preferred
before the carnal, as far as the life to come before this pre-
sent life ; if the priests of the law, in whom notwithstanding
appeared a mirror of God’s glory, are far surpassed by the
ministers of the gospel, who have received a more glorious
ministry ; if the spiritual pastors have a more excellent func-
tion than the civil, “ by how much the heaven is more excel-
lent than the earth, or the soul is more precious than the
body,” as Chrysostom saith®; if the Lord having advanced
them above the condition of other men, hath made them in
some things equal, in some things superior to the glorious
angels of God; and lastly, if the Holy Ghost hath assigned
unto them titles of honour, not only common to them with
the best of the creatures, but also peculiar to the Creator, all
which hath with unanswerable evidence of truth been demon-
strated unto us ; then can we not deny, but that the ministry
is not only a worthy work, as the Apostle here speaketh, but
a most excellent and glorious function.

The full demonstration whereof I thought to be very need-
ful, as well for their sakes who be not of the ministry, as
for those that be. For, first, those of the laity by this doc-
trine may be thoroughly persuaded to esteem their ministers
worthy of that double honour, of reverence and maintenance,
which by the word of God is due unto them; and to free
themselves from the two, no more usual than capital sins of
our time, contempt of the word and sacrilege.

h Gow yas tyudtepos ovpavds «al 5,[Op.,tom.i p. 383, D; quoted above,
gwpdrwv Yxal.— De Sacerd., lib. ili.c. vol. ii, p. 821, g.] ;

DOWNAME
ON THE
CHRISTIAN

MINISTRY.

80 Reverence to ministers ; instances of it.

aprenpix. For as touching reverence, there is no true Christian

—° *_ but he will readily acknowledge that he ought highly to

reverence those whom God would have in special manner

honoured, as the ambassadors of God in the stead of Christ,

sent to reconcile men unto Ged, and to save them. Neither

will he easily despise those whom he acknowledgeth to be the

blessed instruments of God, for his singular and everlasting

good. Whereas contrariwise, not to reverence the ministers

is to dishonour God, whose ambassadors they be. Basely to

esteem of them in respect of their mean estate in the world,

is an evident sign of a worldly-minded man ; who, as he hath

not learned to distinguish the men of God from the men of

the world, or to acknowledge the ordinance of God, who hath

discerned themi; so he seemeth to know no better good

things than worldly goods, and therefore thinketh himself so

much better than the minister, as he is richer. But those

who are religious and wise, are otherwise minded. Obadiah,

though the governor of the king’s house, disdained not to do

nes 18. reverence to the poor prophet Elijah. And Joash the king,

a when Elisha was sick, was content to do him this honour, as

not only to visit him but also to weep upon his face, and say,

2 Kings 13. “ My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and horsemen of

4 the same.” Yea, the Emperor Justinian*, acknowledging

that the ministry and the magistracy were two principal

gifts of God, giveth the precedence to the ministry. And the

like pre-eminence do our laws give to those of the spiritualty

before them of the temporalty. Howbeit private men stand

otherwise affected towards the ministry, every mean man

almost, not only preferring himself before the minister, but

also disdaining to bestow either his son on the ministry, or

his daughter on a minister. Yet Esay the prophet was a

noble man, and as it is thought of the blood royal. Neither

2Chron.22. did the kings of Judah disdain to join in affinity with the
aE aoe priests.

To despise and contemn the minister in respect of his

calling, is to despise God and Christ our Saviour: for “ he

i 1 Cor. iv. 7, Siaxpiver. humanis presidens, &c.— Authentic.
k Maxima quidem in omnibus sunt Collationes, lib. i. tit. 6. Novell. 6. in
dona Dei a superma collata clementia, Prefat. [ap. Corp. Jur. Civ. ; see vol.
sacerdotium et imperium: et illud ii. p. 292, note s.]
quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem

Danger of despising or injuring them. 81

that despiseth you,” saith Christ, “ despiseth Me, and he that vowxamr

Reka Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” It is to profess Pe aye
a man’s self void of all soundness of religion. For itis certain ““S*8*:
Luke 10. 16.

that a true estimate may be taken of men’s religion and piety
towards God, by their behaviour to the ministers of God.
Neither can it be, that they who have been brought by the
ministry of the word to the state of grace and salvation,
should contemn the ministers thereof. Wherefore he that
despiseth the ministry, undoubtedly, saith Ignatius'!, “he is an
atheist and irreligious man, and a despiser of Christ.” It is
to hinder their own salvation, by making the means thereof
uneffectual unto them, which Chrysostom™ esteemeth a point
of madness: “ For it is manifest madness, to despise so great
authority, without which we can neither attain to salvation,
nor to the promised good things.” For he that despiseth the
ministers, despiseth also their ministry ; by which notwith-
standing, as by the ordinary power of God to our salvation, Rom. 1. 16.
He is pleased to save those that believe. And whosoever 1 Cor. 1.21.
despiseth the ministry of the gospel, it shall be easier for
them of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of judgment, than Matt. 10
for him.

To abuse the ministers by word or deed, is a sin highly
displeasing unto God, and grievously provoking His anger.
For seeing they are the ambassadors of God, it cannot be
denied, but that by the injuries and indignities that are
offered to them as ministers, the majesty of God is violated.
Wherefore He hath said, “ Touch not Mine anointed, and do Ps. 105. 15.
My prophets no harm.” Yea, who knoweth not that the per-
sons of ambassadors are by the law of nations sacred and
inviolable ? Because their ambassadors were contumeliously
used, the ancient Romans thought it a sufficient cause to
extinguish Corinth °, though the eye of Greece.

! Y0cos mdurav by ely xa SvooeBys, existimatur: quia sancti habentur le-

kal xpioTov aberav.—[ S. Ignat. Epist.
interp. ad Trall., c. 7. Patr. Apost.,
tom. li. p. 63. ]

™ De Sacerd., lib. ili, cap. 5. pavia
mEpipaviys bm epopay THs TooabTns apxis,
js tvev otte ocwrnpias juiv, olte TaY
emnyyer mevay aryabay emiruxetv.—l[ Op.,
tom. i. p. 383, E; quoted above, vol.
ii. p. 321, g.]

ae Si quis legatum hostium pulsasset,
contra jus gentium id commissum esse

HICKES.

gati—Digest., lib. 1. tit. 6, lege ultima,
[ap. Corp. Jur. Civilis. ] Cic, in Verrem.
lib. i. [c. 83.] Nomen legati ejusmodi
esse debet, quod non modo inter socio-
rum jura, sed etiam inter hostium tela
incolume versetur. De Harusp. Re-
spons.,[c. 16.] Sic enim sentio, jus le-
gatorum cum hominum presidio muni-
tum sit, tum etiam divino jure esse
vallatum.
° Cie, pro lege Manilia. [¢. 5.]

APPENDIX,
NO.IYV.

“—-— sadors, with the overthrow of the Ammonites.

2 Sam. 10.

Ps, 9401.

1 Kings 13.
4.

2 Kings 1.
10, 12.

2 Kings 2.
24,

2 Chron.
36. 16.

Numb. 16.

Deut. 17.
iy

Hosea 4, 4.

Acts 5. 39,
Numb. 16.
11

82 Punishment for despising God’s ministers.

David likewise revenged the indignity offered to his ambas-
Do earthly
princes, who are but dust and ashes, revenge the wrongs
offered to their ambassadors; and shall we think that the
Lord of hosts, the God of vengeance, will suffer the indigni-
ties offered to His ambassadors to go unpunished? ‘“ Never
any man,” saith Ignatius”, “ offending in this kind escaped
punishment.” Let the withered hand of Jeroboam, which he
had stretched out against the prophet: let the two captains
with their fifties, who were sent to apprehend the Prophet
Elijah, destroyed by fire from heaven: let the lewd children
which reviled Elisha, devoured by the bears: let the people
of Israel, for contemning and mocking the prophets, rejected :
let Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, who for insurrection made
against Aaron, were swallowed up of the earth, be witnesses
of this truth. Neither hath the Lord taught this by example
alone, but also by precept, wherein He hath appointed death
to him that rebelleth against the priest. For though the con-
tempt of the ministers now-a-days seem a very small, or none
offence ; yet Chrysostom 4 doubteth not to call it the cause of
all evil, and the Scripture noteth it as a grievous sin. Where-
fore the Prophet Hosea, when he would set out in lively
colours the desperate wickedness of the people in his time, he
saith, they were “like them which contend with the priest.”
For to impugn the ministers which are sent of God, is not to
repugn men, but giant like, “ to fight with God:” for it “is
not Aaron that you strive against,” saith Moses to Corah and
his complices, “but even against God Himself.”

I come to the honour of maintenance, which, though it be
most due to the minister by the word of God, is notwith-
standing now-a-days greatly called into question"... . .

¥ ovdels Eucwev aTiumpntos.—[S. aidHs, ovdels dBos.—S. Chrys. in 2

Ignat. Epist. interp.] ad Magnes. [c.
lil. ap. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 54: |

4 [rTodTo mavtTwy TaY Kakey alTLov,
bt. Ta TOY apxdvTwY HpavicOn, ovdeula

Tim. Hom. ii. Op., tom. xi. p. 668, A.j

r [This extract ends at p. 71 of the
original Sermon, which runs on to 103
pages.

13 9a el Deak PD gl

No, 5:

DU PIN, A DIVINE OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH, AND ONE OF THE SORBON
DOCTORS, IN HIS PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH DISSERTATION OF HIS BOOK,
ENTITLED, “DE ANTIQUA ECCLESIA DISCIPLINA,’ PRINTED AT PARIS
1686 °, AND AFTERWARDS PRETENDED TO BE PRINTED AT COLOGNE 1691.

Due sunt inter homines maxime et prestantissime societa-
tes, civilis et ecclesiastica, &c.© ‘ There are,” saith he, “ two
most noble and excellent societies among men, the civil and
the ecclesiastical ; of which, though the same persons are
members of both, and for that reason they may seem to
vulgar eyes confused and intermixed with one another, yet
in reality they are powers of a different kind and nature,
and tend by different means to different ends: for the end
of the ecclesiastical society, is eternal life; but of the civil,
peace and tranquillity of the commonwealth. Which ends,
since they are sundry, and wholly separate from one an-
other, it is no wonder that the means which conduce to
them are plainly different from each other. For no man
can attain to eternal life, but by those actions which flow
from the freest motions of his will, proceeding from the love
of God; from whence it is the business of religion, so to
dispose and cultivate the minds of men by faith and piety,
that they may willingly and freely obey the commandments

* [De Antiqua Ecclesie Disciplina
Dissertationes Historicee Autore Ludo-
vico Ellies Dupin, 4to. Paris. 1686. }

> (This edition is 4to. of smaller
size and type than the original. The
whole number of pages is the same,
and in parts they agree page for page.
The title-page has the words, “ Ex-
cerptz ex conciliis Gcumenicis et
Sanctorum Patrum ac auctorum Eccle-
siasticorum Scriptis,”’ after “ Histori-
ce,’ and “Colonie Agrippine, Sump-

tibus Huguetanorum, 1691,” but it
was really printed at Amsterdam. See
General Dictionary, vol. viii. p. 408,
note B. |

¢ [Dissert. vil., in qua probatur
Pontificem aut Eeclesiam nullam ha-
bere in reges eorumque bona auctori-
tatem directam vel indirectam, nec
posse reges ab ipsis ullatenus deponi
aut eorum subditos a fide et obedientia
eximi. Preloquium,—p. 433. ed.1686. ]

APPENDIX.

NO. V.

84 Distinctions of the civil and ecclesiastical powers.

of Christ. But on the other hand, it makes no difference
as to the tranquillity of the commonwealth, whether its
laws be observed willingly, or otherwise, so they be observed.
And therefore it is the business of the civil society to take
care that they be observed, which is effected by fear of
temporal punishment and death. In a word, the power of
the civil society hath the bodies of men for its object;
but the authority of the ecclesiastical regards their souls.
Wherefore seeing bodies are subject to force and compulsion,
it is their office, who are governors of the civil society, to
punish offenders, and put them to death. But since external
force cannot touch the souls of men, it must follow, that the
ecclesiastical society hath no power to use external force, nor
to reduce sinners any other way from their sinful courses,
but by prayers and precepts, which if they will not obey, it
can inflict no other punishment upon them, but excommu-
nication, by which they are denounced unworthy of the
Church’s society, and eternal life. In the last place, the
laws of the civil society regard only the good and tran-
quillity of the commonwealth; but contrariwise there is
no other end of ecclesiastical laws, but to keep the sanctity
and purity of Christian doctrine and discipline sound and
undefiled.

“ From these principles, which are most evident and sure,
it follows, that the power of the Church is wholly spiritual,
and does not in the least reach the temporal rights or goods
of kings or other men ; so that neither kings can be deposed,
nor private persons be deprived in any manner of what they
have, by mere ecclesiastical power”

“ Wherefore‘ a great difference is to be observed between
the power, and him who useth and exerciseth the power.
For it may so happen, that he who useth one power may be
subject to another power, though that power which he exer-
ciseth is subject to no power. To apply which observation
to my present purpose: you must take notice, that the same
man may at the same time be a member both of the civil and
ecclesiastical society, and therefore by different personal rela-
tions be subject both to the ecclesiastical and civil power.
But then it does not follow from thence in the least, on this

1 [ltaque observandum est &c., ibid. p. 434.)

Their relation, and mutual subordination. 85

hand, that the civil power which he hath is subject to the
ecclesiastical ; or, on the other, that the ecclesiastical is
subject to the civil power. Thus bishops are subject to the
regal power in civil matters, but so as the episcopal power is
not subject to the civil power. And therefore a king or
emperor cannot constitute or depose a bishop by civil au-
thority and force. In like manner, kings are subject unto
bishops, and the chief pontiff’, and the spiritual power; but
they cannot be made or deposed by ecclesiastical authority :
wherefore, though it is out of all doubt that kings are subject
to the spiritual, and bishops to the temporal power; yet we
must not from thence assert that the ecclesiastical power is
subject to the civil, or the civil to the ecclesiastical ; because
both these powers are of a sundry different nature, and
wholly dependent upon God, by whom they are instituted ;
so that neither of them can do any thing against the other,
notwithstanding the spiritual is more noble than the tem-
poral power.”

e The chief pontiff is added by the learned author, to avoid the censures of
the Romish Church.

DUPIN

DE ANTIQ.

ECCL.
DISCIP.

‘ mois pean — 79
so tel: fherseaert to aba
Pidik ton sie 1. agit Wi
ren ik we napeiukok th

* gees oy Seon each pele ‘east ta
© why et Hear

arsoneslt
eiah ae LHR ult ah $95
i wpb oh Wr liza
Piel iy we said fal ian reales 2 Tas
7 a woth ‘tes i
i a" bas jeter ‘

Save ee ph

3 7 faite wee

. fat, with te

bidlaetat bleeds Teh
a
» Joi) PUSS

shire
a: : ,

ENS

APPENDIX.

No. 6.

A PARTICULAR TREATISE

ISAAC CASAUBON OF GENEVA,

ENTITLED,

DE LIBERTATE ECCLESIASTICA,

OF THE LIBERTY (OR FREE ESTATE) OF THE CHURCH ;

ADDRESSED TO THE POLITICIANS (THEN so CALLED) WHO DESIRE TO BE
INSTRUCTED IN THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN POPE PAUL Y. AND

THE REPUBLIC OF VENICE, A.D. MDCVII.

bie WORT A PIR Hh OETA ee oe

% r .
j } ae | 7 ag a
+ . = # — )
> “a Fs
.
(
ite rs
€ »
(
4 7
t }
t
° h |
4
*
-
i
=)
D ~<

THE PREFACE*.

TO THE TRULY PIOUS AND TRULY POLITIC READER.

Ir is without cause, that many even sometimes judicious casavzox
men, have so much wondered at the controversy which lately neti
arose between Pope Paul V. and the most serene republic PS***c™
of Venice; for as it is not dissonant to reason, that the
common people, who are unacquainted with affairs, and
wholly taken up with their own daily business, should have
been amazed and affrighted at such news: so that men
well skilled in the history of times past, and especially of
what is now doing in the world, should entertain the least
admiration upon this occasion, there is no reason at all:
for indeed wise men are used to admire only at such things
as either rarely happen, or the causes of which are obscure
and hard to be traced out. But what wise man can be
ignorant of examples (with which all the histories of past
times, as well as of our own abound) of the like contro-
versies, and even of most bloody wars, wholly owing to the
same cause? And the cause is also plain and obvious to all
men. For ever since the pope has suffered himself to be
persuaded by his flatterers, those fatal plagues of great
potentates, that the empire of the world is his; that the
dominion of all things, not only spiritual but temporal, (as
they call them,) appertains to him; that on him alone all
the kings and princes of the earth depend, as on one in
whose power it is to confirm, or change, or take away their
kingdoms and transfer them to whomsoever he pleases:
since that time, he that was before revered by all as a
common father, has begun to grow burdensome to them,
and to be suspected and feared by them. Hence those so
frequent, so lasting, and so often repeated quarrels, dissen-
sions, and in the end most deadly wars, waged with the

8 [This treatise was translated from pp. 33, 34; see also the advertisement
the copy published in the 3rd edition otf Almeloveen after this preface, and

of Casaubon’s Epistles by Almeloveen, _ the translator’s advertisement after Ap-
Rotterdam, 1706; see above, vol. i. pendix No.8, of this volume. ]

HICKES, N

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

90 The liberty of the Church, the alleged

utmost hatred both by the pope and against the pope.
And though in compliance with their common interest, they
have often desisted from war; yet because it never was, nor
ever will be possible for princes who disagree in their affec-
tions and opinions, and are perpetually in danger from one
another, to be at peace in good earnest; that is rather to
be looked upon as putting off the war, than as a firm peace.

Pax ante fida nivibus et flammis erit.

Sooner shall snow and fire agree,
Than peace ’twixt such e’er lasting be.

For what prudent man possessed of a lawful dominion,
would submit to so immense and boundless an empire, the
hke whereto was never heard? would not use his utmost
endeavour to throw it off? Princes who ascribe to the pope
that unbounded power, which equally contains under it all
rights human and divine, divest themselves not only of their
majesty, but of their liberty. They may sometimes, I con-
fess, do it with impunity, but can never be secured: where-
fore if there be often disagreement between the pope and
princes, it ought not to be thought any thing wonderful ;
but we should rather wonder by what engines the generous
minds of the greatest and most powerful princes are at last
subdued, so that they are either not sensible that they are
governed or concerned at it, though they know it. Indeed
it is worth while to consider by what art approaches are
made to most of them on this occasion, while they are
minding something else: for as in a free state it usually
happens that a few, to gain the supreme power into their
own hands, set upon the people by craft, and by such
methods as the wisest of the philosophers calls the sophisms¢
of a few governing men: so they who endeavour to subject
princes to the yoke of this dishonourable servitude (I mean
the pope’s temporal dominion) are careful to soften the
harshness of the thing by giving it a decent name, and
cover a certain and manifest usurpation (as the most holy
father St. Bernard? called it even in his time) with the title

» [L. A. Seneca. Herc. Furens, act. 4 [S. Bernard. de Consideratione,
ii. 375. | lib. 1. c. 2. Op., tom. i. col. 426, E;
© [odvyapxiKa ooplouara. — Arist. quoted below, p. 143. ]
Polit. iv. 13. 6. ed. Bekker. ]

ground for the usurpation of temporal power. 91

of ecclesiastical liberty: who if they meant nothing else
than what these words seem to express, would be most
worthy of the love and praise of all men: for he deserves
not to be esteemed a Clhiristian who does not desire, and
to the utmost of his power promote the liberty and preserva-
tion of the Church of God, the spouse of our Lord Jesus
Christ, for which He was contented to lay down even His
life. But that which is done here is far different from that
which is pretended; one thing is openly professed in words,
another really meant under-hand ; and while the liberty of
the Church is made the pretence, that which is designed
is the absolute dominion of one with a few associates. And
when some men now labour with great industry, as if the
Christian religion did wholly depend upon this one thing,
to divest all the emperors, kings, and sovereign princes of
the world of their majesty, and set up one, not so much
over them all, as in the room of them; all their attempts
and undertakings of this nature, which are sometimes very
dreadful, are still cloaked under the soft name of the liberty
of the Church. But not to recall to mind those past ca-
lamities, which have sprung from this fountain alone, and
often miserably overrun all Italy, France, and Germany ;
the pope having now of late published a dreadful bull
of excommunication against the most serene republic of
Venice, alleges as the cause of all this anger, the viola-
tion of the liberty of the Church*®. In the name of God
and man! what, I beseech you, is that liberty, the con-
tempt of which is to be expiated with the éternal dam-
nation of so illustrious a prince, of a senate that has de-
served so well of the universal Church, and of so many in-
nocent cities and people? But why are the names changed
by which things are signified? For the liberty of the
Church is not concerned in this case, but only the interests
of a few, who by a certain use or abuse of speaking are

mus, ut ecclesiastica libertas et immu-
nitas, nostraque et sedis Apostolicz
auctoritas violetur et contemnatur, &c.
—-Pauli V. Pape excommunicationis
sententia adversus serenissimum ducem
et senatum ac universum dominium
Venetum; ob decreta sua, I. De non
alienandis bonis immobilibus in per-

gendis de novo ecclesiis et monasteriis
aliisque hujusmodi edificiis absque
licentia sereniss. Ducis, &c. III. De
judicandis et puniendis clericis pro cri-
minibus gravibus et atrocibus; et pro
iisdein responsiones, pp. 4, 6. Francof.
1607.)

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.

PREFACE.

92 What that so-called liberty is; the scandals

arrenvix. Called by the name of the Church: the question is also con-
“°:*=_ cerning the impunity of ecclesiastics, and licence for them
to attempt any thing under pretence of religion; and not
concerning the liberty of elections, in defence of which the
senate and people of Venice are prepared to undergo a
thousand deaths: nor lastly, concerning any matter which
regards the common interest of the Christian flock. Behold
what is now styled the liberty of the Church; a liberty
established by the damnation of so many innocent souls ;
and for the establishment of which God’s praises are to be
no longer sung!; the perpetual sacrifice is ordered to be
taken away; an infinite multitude of miserable people, with-
out any demerit of their own, are forbid all exercise of re-
ligion; nay, and alarmed with the fear of war, and of all
the ills that attend it. What need many words? this is
that liberty, against which if any man, induced by the love
of his country, dare but to mutter, he is immediately called
a politician, as though no longer deserving the name of a
Christian. And indeed this was the only thing wanting to
fill up the scandal of our age, that as though the Church
of God were not at this time rent into parts enough, that
new name should be likewise found out by some turbulent
ringleaders of sedition, who are sworn enemies to the public
tranquillity, to alienate from each other such as otherwise

agree in the doctrines of faith; and when thus alienated,
to compel them to divide into parties, or perhaps to join
themselves, whether they will or no, to such whose sus-
pension from the communion of the Church of Rome the
whole Christian world hath long since lamented.

Hoe Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridz &.

It is this our enemies covet most,

And would procure at any cost.
And yet what else can you think they desire or aim at, who
are constantly speaking and writing severely against those
whom they call “ politicians?” They render them hateful to
the common people; they cast the foulest reproaches upon
them: Cardinal Baronius in a thousand places of his Annals
calls them novatores, novatoribus ortos, impios, hereticos : “in-

f [Ibid., p. 7.] _ 8 [Virg. Aineid. ii. 104.]

caused for the purpose of establishing it. 93

novators, the spawn of innovators, atheists, heretics.” There
are in all men’s hands writings of divers authors, as of
Thomas Bozius®, Alexander Carerius of Padoua'‘, published
at Rome, Padoua, and other places, in defence of that eccle-
siastical liberty ‘against the impious politicians,” as the titles
of those books express. A fine way this indeed, and of great
efficacy, to reduce the universal flock to one fold; when
even those of the Church’s household are with atrocious
revilings, grievous to ingenuous persons, thrust out of doors
as it were by head and shoulders, as thé saying is; and
when thus driven away, all hope of return is cut off for
ever by new stumbling-blocks, which are daily laid in their
way. But that liberty forsooth is of such importance, that
in defence of it, it is no shame to throw all things into dis-
order, to confound heaven and earth, and things sacred with
profane; and when the precepts of our heavenly Master are
such as cannot be gainsayed, and have been taught us also
by His example; viz., by all means to encourage charity
above all things, even towards our enemies; and to be
subject to the powers ordained of God, and obey them for
conscience sake: yet in maintenance and confirmation of
this liberty, which for so many better ages was unknown,
and not so much as heard of, to sow quarrels perpetually,
to stir up wars in all places, to be a terror to kings and
princes, to absolve subjects from their laws, and arm them

against their own sovereigns, and in a word to violate all’

rights divine and human: this is called pious and holy, and
maintained to be most acceptable to God. For, indeed, this
is what they ought to do, who would confirm to posterity
the truth of that old saying:

Male imperando summum imperium amittiturs.
By governing ill the supreme authority is lost.

But now I turn to you, most judicious and prudent
statesmen, who are privy to the counsels of princes, and
desire and beseech you to vouchsafe to read this book, com-

5 [De Ruinis gentium et regnorum, Alexandro Carerio Pativino I. C. auc-
adversus impios Politicos; libriviii.auc- tore, Patavii. 1599 i]
tore Thoma Bozio Eugubino, Rome. j [Publ. Syri Fragmenta, 1. 133, ap.
1596.) Corp. Poet. Lat., p. 1532. fol. Lond.
i [De Potestate Romani Pontificis, 1713.]
adversus imipios Politicos; libri duo,

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.

PREFACE.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

94 Statesmen exhorted to oppose the claims of the Pope.

posed indeed without much skill, but proceeding from a love
of truth, and a particular devotion for the powers ordained of
God. It concerns your fidelity, by whose counsels all things
are administered in the state, to consider this case thoroughly
yourselves, which if well understood, confirms all the strength
of the civil government, and if otherwise, overthrows it ; and
to desire and endeavour to have it perfectly well known by
all your master’s subjects, But above all, it most concerns
your princes to take the naked truth of the matter in this
case from you, arid to understand it rightly: for it is usual
with the assertors of that doctrine, who are men of great wit
and indefatigable industry, to come upon them unawares
after a wonderful manner, and with soft and fine words to
instil the poison of their pestilent doctrine into them, while
they think of nothing less: for there is a vast difference
between what they say upon this question in the ears of
princes, and what they babble to the common people, and
in their books. Which artifice has hitherto so happily suc-
ceeded, that very few princes seem to have known hitherto,
what are their real sentiments in this matter, and what they
teach concerning the power of the prince. But for the
future it ought to be your care, most prudent and wise
counsellors, that they may not be ignorant of what is so
necessary. Indeed I know, that the greatest persons of
your rank are thoroughly persuaded, and I am confident that
I have clearly and evidently demonstrated in this short
treatise, that if that doctrine be admitted, and this mock
liberty received into the minds of men without examining
it, all is concluded; there is an end of the authority and
rights of all civil powers: for in effect the dominion itself
is wholly taken away from princes, however the empty name
of it may seem to be left them; although by this doctrine
they are not allowed the right of using so much as the name,
unless it be at the discretion of another; than which what
more contumelious and reproachful can happen to those
who receive that sublime pitch of dignity from God alone ;
whose ordinance is manifestly opposed by such as subvert
the rights of princes, absolve subjects from their allegiance,
and break all the bonds of civil government? let this be
known, understood, and throughly considered both by those

The consequences of not opposing them. 95

who govern, and those who are governed. This is the
common cause of all princes ; for this liberty of the Church
falsely so called, oppresses the liberty of them all. Oppresses
do I say? yes whole kingdoms are taken from their lawful
possessors, under the pretence of this liberty, and claimed
for the pope; and that with so much vehemence, with such
bitterness and sharpness of words, as nothing can be more.
Pray read but that one most accurate digression of Cardinal
Baronius, in his eleventh book' of Annals*, by which he en-
deavours to recover the kingdom of Sicily from the catholic
king. You will wonder that Charles V., an emperor most
worthy of immortal praise, with his son and grandson the
two Philips, catholic kings of Spain, should by the fierce
defenders of the apostolic see be no otherwise accounted of
than as certain vile robbers of the world, and enemies to the
Church'. But by what right? by that of this lberty of the
Church ; the name whereof is repeated so often in every page
by that author, that it almost turns your stomach. And now
let princes go, and bestow their riches, their kmgdoms, and
themselves in defence of that liberty. Nor is it of any
moment, that some of them seem to be in no danger at
present from this doctrine; for if once by their neglect they
suffer the foundations of their dominion to be weakened in
the minds of their subjects, it is altogether necessary that
the dominion itself and their empire decay, totter, and fail
at the root. Consider, most prudent counsellors, that he
threatens all princes, who does injury to one. Consider,
that it was most wisely said by Pope Felix III.™: ‘ An error
which is not opposed, is approved ; and a truth that is not
defended, is oppressed: for to neglect a perverse opinion,
when you are able to overthrow it, is nothing less than to

encourage it.”

* { Baronii Annales Ecclesiastici ad
ann. 1097, num. xviiil.—cxliii. tom. xi,
col. 881—927. Mogunt. 1606. This
Excursus is also contained in the first
editions published at Rome; it was
omitted in the edition Antw. 1608,
tom. xi. col. 662, being proscribed by
Philip III. It was published as a
separate tract ‘‘de Monarchia Siciliz”’
at Paris, in 1609, with Cardinal Asca-
nius’ observations, and Baronius’ reply,
and his letter to Philip III. In the

Consider, that you are those politicians, the

edition of the Annals, Luce, 1724, it is
found, tom. xviii. pp. 49, sqq. |

! [Ibid., num, cxxxix. ]

m (Error, cui non resistitur, appro-
batur; et veritas, que minime defen-
satur, Opprimitur. Negligere quippe,
cum possis deturbare perversam opi-
nionem, nihil est aliud quam fovere.—
Felicis Pape ITI. (al. II. A.D. 483.)
KEpist. i. ad Acacium, ap. Concilia,
tom. v. col, 145, D.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
PREFACE,

1 (rather
“volume.”

96 Concluding appeal.

APPENDIX. name of which is so odious to the first authors of that sect.

———— 'Take care therefore that they may effectually experience,
that you understand the meaning of the name, and are truly
skilful in civil policy ; that you are careful of the future, and
look with great sagacity, as well forward as backward; and
that which the sage Megalopolitan (Polybius") teaches to
be the property of wise men, that you do not trust to fortune,
but to those counsels which right reason dictates.

I shall only add, that I entreat and beseech all those in
whose hands these papers shall come, that if in this disserta-
tion any thing shall happen to fall from me, expressed with
a little too much freedom, it may not be imputed to any ill
will or irreverence towards the holy order whom I profess
to regard with all due honour and veneration ; but that they
would ascribe it all, whatever it may be, partly to the love of
my country, which I shall never conceal to be in me very
vehement; partly to the love of truth, to which that a chief
regard is to be had in all disputes, can be doubted by none
that considers himself as a man born to a share of right
reason. So may the Lord Jesus, who can neither deceive
nor be deceived, hear my prayers when I call upon Him.
Farewell, most prudent and noble counsellors, and administer
well by God’s help.

n [Polybii Hist. ii. 4.]

THE EDITORS ADVERTISEMENT®.

Tus small tract was composed by the advice and command
of some great men in France, upon occasion of the disputes
between the pope of Rome and the republic of Venice. But
things being changed, and the difference composed while it
was in the press, and the 264th page was printing at Paris
in the year of our Lord 1607, in octavo, Henry IV., king of
France, forbid the printing any more of it, and command-
ed, that what was already published should be suppressed? :
therefore the work remained imperfect. A very few copies
that were begun, came abroad without Casaubon’s name.
Melchior Goldastus inserted a copy that came into his hands,
in the first tome of his Monarchia S. Romani Imperit‘, p.
674, et seqq.

I thought it would be a public service to give the world
a new edition of this book, that is so very scarce. How
learned in ecclesiastical antiquities Casaubon was is very
easily shewn, both from this specimen and from his Exerci-
tations upon Baronius’s Annals?.

® [Observatio Editoris (Almelo- sive tractatus utriusque jurisdictionis.

veen) ap. Epist. Is. Casauboni, tom ii.
p. 165. Roterod. 1706. ]

> [Vita Isaaci Casauboni p. 43, ibid.
tom. ii. See the note at the end of this
treatise. ]

€ [Monarchia S. Romani Imperii

HICKES.

Francof. 1621. ]

d [Isaaci Casauboni de rebus sacris
et ecclesiasticis Exercitationes xvi. ad
Card. Baronii Prolegomena in Annales
&c. fol. Lond. 1614. ]

e ot
eee | ees,
ial 7 ~

~— Whi det. h Re ;
_

ee ES user rela

aS 7 pe Carin val ¢ ye

ea aes :
F i red aaa, ai Pc 4 fe hes + ik :
: te Say ican’ 4 set Wu a chil ss taal
; Jay Bite dtr ets Pes seid ait: iended ePApP le a
tie wees ah fe kniaaey 1 th
it sr 63 pro bare ir lish bs eee a Ve gar
ter eter 2 oo wide . i re vetoes y 5a ai
Ha re F . crt ay” Sth ps Oe.

= a) 7
; sii Hadad da Phanbe why Ieee |
e = i 0 _ : : ; \ ae or
—— ; P aa are ‘vt ris 6 £ sort et y J «|
a 2

. Et eee Pay Tate: ih “nie wr sient fini
j if 4 fori

= -~-
_ V4
ar ft : 4

)
‘ » taser

mE we

we
chum) 7

THE

CONTENTS

OF THE

CHAPTERS OF THIS BOOK

OF THE

SIBERTY OF THE CHURCH.

I. The cause and occasion of this treatise. The explication of the word libertas.
Various kinds of liberty. That Christian liberty given by God is often men-
tioned by the ancient fathers, but not ecclesiastical, or the liberty of the
Church. A mistake of the interpreters of the canon law in defining the
liberty of the Church. A particular enquiry into its definition.

II. What, and of what kind the liberty of the ancient Church was from its first
rise to the times of Constantine the Great. A comparison of both powers
ecclesiastical and civil, and concerning the right of each, as well ordinary as
extraordinary.

III. What, and of what kind the liberty of the Church was from the times of
Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great, pope of Rome*

IV. What, and of what kind the liberty of the Church was from the times of
Gregory the Great to those of Hildebrand, or Pope Gregory VII.

{V. What, and of what kind the liberty of the Church was from Gregery the
Seventh to the council of Trent.

VI. What, and of what kind the liberty of the Church is which is now taught
and defended: who are its chief defenders, and what their object is”. |

VII. That the liberty of the Church, which is now defended, does root up the
very foundations of all civil power.

VIII. Some examples of those fallacies and sophisms, by which this present
ecclesiastical liberty is defended.

IX. That the defence of this liberty has drove its defenders to affirm things
which are absurd, enormous, and impious.

X. That Cardinal Baronius has, in maintenance of this ecclesiastical liberty,
writ many things that are contrary to truth. A confutation of his Parzenesis.
Remarks upon his Annals.

XI. That it would be useful as well as decent, particularly for the Church of
Rome, to set bounds to this ecclesiastical liberty. The conclusion of this
treatise.

a [The work breaks off in the third chapters which were omitted by Hickes

chapter. | are here suppied from the original. ]
» [The contents of the fifth and sixth

. a

: Sigh setae" t ey
nee hs goes

“ear ire A ee ee
/ SOD. wig ai reas sate

~~, oe. mae ae

aa | te

Rad a

ya fs Me aa

‘
tie Pier Ay Rogrye & 7 Pr Ate! all » i= a reba ton >t P%
Pr : F ahalea hatte etait wor
*,

o
7 met i". is n faa : few f “=u ié Sd a] 1a dt va e A _
a: : P ; - tae Pi ie wa peer y
>
»
7
:

ry HG sy ‘

a ,
f
. :
: ‘ | + 4 :
: 4 . , _
f am
i f
> Te ‘ ai 4 ri
7 -
; “hes 4 “ibe & |
*
4 / + ‘ : ff frees
=
Cet a, me
Me J
,
*
v
2
a U
9 ‘
'
:
;
Aa
'
af
n
: i oxi)
a» |
;
.
it |

PARTICULAR TREATISE

WRITTEN BY

ISAAC CASAUBON OF GENEVA,

ENTITLED, DE LIBERTATE ECCLESIASTICA, OF THE LIBERTY (OR FREE
ESPATE) OF THE CHURCH.

CHAR. 1.

THE CAUSE AND OCCASION OF THIS TREATISE. ‘THE EXPLICATION OF THE
WORD LIBERTAS. VARIOUS KINDS OF LIBERTY. THAT CHRISTIAN
LIBERTY GIVEN BY GOD IS OFTEN MENTIONED BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS,
BUI NOT ECCLESIASTICAL, OR THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH. A MIS-
TAKE OF THE INTERPRETERS OF THE CANON LAW IN DEFINING THE
LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH. A PARTICULAR ENQUIRY INTO ITS DEFINI-

TION.

Att men love liberty, as one of the chief goods of the
mind, desire it themselves, and, for its sake, are indulgent to
others: and all true Catholic Christians have a respect and
veneration for the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the pillar of truth, and haven of salvation ; and yet all that
are styled, and are in reality Catholics and Christians, do
not appear affected in the same manner towards that which
is now called the liberty of the Church. Many think this
the only bulwark of Christian piety; place the sum of all
religion in the defence and enlargement of it; avoid those
that are of a different opinion, as persons in a dangerous
error; and look upon them as execrable and detestable
persons. Others on the contrary maintain, that the former
are in a great and senseless mistake, and are either wholly
ignorant of the signification of this word, or fraudulently con-
ceal it; for that now the specious name of liberty is made
use of by such as design to enslave others, and be lords
themselves. In like manner as vices often counterfeit
virtues, as covetousness doth good husbandry, prodigality

102

The occasion of writing this Treatise.

arrenvix. bounty, cruelty a zeal for justice, and remiss government

NO. VI.

mercy, which was observed by Gregory the Great*: so the
liberty of the Church is falsely pretended, and made show of
by such as endeavour to put a yoke of most severe bondage,
both upon the Church, which was made free, not by the
authority of the magistrate, but by the precious blood of
Christ, and upon the necks even of kings and princes them-
selves. Tio make use of good words when you intend mis-
chief, is the greater malice; for there is no one tolerably
read in history, but knows that this liberty of the Church
has for some ages past been the incentive which has set all
the Christians in Europe at enmity against each other, and
by cruel and long wars wasted them in a most deplorable
manner; and now also it is owing to the same ecclesiastical
liberty, that Italy, that most splendid part of the world, is
disturbed, and in danger of being ruined betwixt war and
peace, preservation and destruction : for this is the complaint
of Pope Paul V.” in his bull of excommunication against the
most serene republic of Venice, that his papal majesty is
violated by their infringing the liberty of the Church. The
Venetians on the other hand allege °, that by yielding tu the
pope in this particular they should betray the rights of their
commonwealth and the true liberty of the Church. This is
indeed a question of the greatest importance, and has de-
servedly employed many of the ablest pens to do justice to
both sides. I hope it will move no one’s envy, if among
such a number of writers I have also an impression upon
me to enquire thoroughly into a matter of so much moment ;
especially since I have taken great offence at what Cardinal
Baronius says upon this subject, who in so many passages of
his Annals defends this liberty after such a manner as not to
fear pronouncing all such to be heretics, and damned to

@ [Plerumque vitia virtutes se esse

breve contra omne jus et zquum
mentiuntur. Nam sepe sub parcimo-

emanasse, et contra ea que divina

niz nomine se tenacia palliat, contra-
que se effusio sub appellatione largi-~
tatis occultat. Szpe inordinata re-
missio pietas creditur, et effrenata ira
spiritalis zeli virtus estimatur.—S.
Greg. M. Regule Pastoralis, pars ii.
c. 9. Op., tom. ii. col. 28, E.]}

» [See above, p. 91, note e.]

“ {Cum cognoverimus prafatum

Seriptura, sanctorum Patrum doctrina,
sacrique canones precipiunt in pre-
judicium auctoritatis secularis a Deo
nobis traditz, et libertatis Reipublice
nostre promulgatum fuisse.—Seren.
Venetiarum Ducis Rescriptum, printed
in the work quoted above, p. 91, note e,
p- 13.]

The explication of the word Libertas. 103

eternal flames, who have a different opinion of it from him.
What Catholic will be so stupid, and so confident of his
salvation, as not to be moved with so grievous a denunci-
ation? as not to be inflamed with a desire of knowing, what
it is which is now meant by the liberty of the Church? I
have enquired into this, not for the sake of contention, I call
the immortal God to witness, but with a desire to find out
the truth. Therefore that this dissertation may proceed in
order, I shall take the question from the very beginning, and
first say something of the word /ibertas, which is of various
and manifold acceptation.

Liber (free) in its first signification is a country word,
as clades, soboles, and many others, which later time has
transferred to things most different. Aézos in Greek is the
bark taken off the tree: but for 7 others wrote 8, whence
the grammarians derive XeBnpls quasi Nernpis, and say, that
originally that word signified étros Kuadmov, the shell of a
bean. From thence /iber among the ancient Latins, at first
in the same sense, meant the bark stripped from its tree,
and liberare, to strip off the bark. Afterwards when in the
wars any one that was taken got away from him that took
him, by the elegance or wantonness of the soldiers, he began
to be called liber; as on the contrary, he that being once
taken remained with the conqueror, and could not get loose
from him, was called servus et mancipium. With a little
difference €AevHepos in Greek is derived from a power of
going where one has a mind: not as some trifle, 6 é\ev0wv
érrov épa: but by a like analogy, as revOnpns, “a mourner,”
from vev0e, “to mourn;” yoepos, the same, from yoo, and
others of the same sort. Therefore liberty is opposed to
captivity and servitude: but both liberty and servitude come
to man after many ways. And there are also several manners
of expression, in which this word is used in divers senses,
whereof I shall here speak briefly, lest for want of under-
standing the word we should (which cannot otherwise be
avoided) be ignorant of the thing itself; for Plato said
well in his Gorgiass, Hides ta ovopuara eloerar kal Ta
mpaypatra: “ He that rightly understands words, shall also

d [ds ay 7é dvduara €idf, eloeror kal Cratylus of Plato.—Platon. Cratylus,
7a mpdypmata. The reference is tothe p. 435, FE. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,

CHAP. I.

APPENDIX,
NO. VI.

1 Cor. 7. 21.

104 Threefold sense of Liberty; (1.) of the body ;

understand the things themselves:” and Plutarch lkewise

most judiciously and truly says, from the common opinion
of philosophers, (as he tells us°), “that they who have not
learnt to interpret words rightly, will also take the things
themselves wrong ;” and that many now do so in the ques-
tion before us, will plainly appear from what shall be said
hereafter. But to come to the purpose.

Liberty is properly ascribed to persons, yet sometimes
also to things inanimate, upon the account of some immunity
or peculiar privilege granted to them. The liberty of man
may be considered, either in particular persons, or in many,
who constitute as it were one body. Of that which belongs
to particular persons, there are as many sorts as there are
kinds of things to which the wills of men may be referred :
for both liberty and servitude, when spoken of man, do
always relate to his will and determination. The will of
man either regards those things which his mind desires as
necessary to him, as he is a living creature, (which the
holy Scriptures and the fathers call ta Buwte«ad, “ the things
of this life:” Aristotle, ta mpos 70 eivas avayxaia, “things
necessary to our being,’’) or it hath respect to those actions,
in which the difference of virtue and vice is placed, which
belong to man as he is a rational creature, (the philosopher
calls them things necessary, 7pds TO Kadds civat, “ to our
well-being ;” not only to our living, but to our living as we
ought :) or lastly it respects those things which man’s mind
desires, as he remembering his heavenly extraction prepares
himself for a future life and happiness. Hence there is also
a threefold liberty: the first is that of the body, which is
likewise the primitive signification of liberty. Of this you
meet with much in books of civil law; not so much in the
holy Scriptures, and writings of divines: because it is of
great importance to civil life, whether a man be free or a
slave: but of none at all in order to obtain future happiness,
as we are often taught in the gospel; although the Apostle,
in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, expressly adviseth us
to desire rather to be free-men than slaves; “ Art thou
called being a servant‘, care not for it; but if thou mayest

(2.) of the mind; (3.) of the soul. 105

be made free, use it rather.” It is known to all, that slaves
are excluded from holy orders and monasteries, by many
canons and constitutions made for that purpose. Next to
this is the liberty of the mind, as much more noble than the
former, as the mind is nobler than the body. They want
this liberty, who are slaves to their vices and sinful affec-
tions: they enjoy it, who abandoning vulgar errors, wholly
apply themselves to virtue, without coveting or fearing any
thing. The obtaining of this was the end of all the moral
doctrine of the philosophers: and it is a most known maxim
of the Stoics, “that only the wise man is free, and that
all others are slaves.” But it was not possible for any man
to attain to the liberty of the mind, either by the strength
of human wisdom, or even by the Mosaical law, which to the
people of the Jews was the mistress of piety and virtue; for

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.

CHAP. I,

all mortal men, as well Jews as Greeks, are the servants of Rom. iii.

sin, as the Apostle proves in that divine Epistle to the
Romans: therefore no man living is free. For which reason
it was necessary there should be a third kind of liberty, that
men might attain to the liberty they desired. This is that
liberty, not only of the mind but of the spirit, peculiar to the
faithful, purchased by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ for
His Church, as much more excellent than the former, as
divine and heavenly things excel human and earthly, as life
exceeds death, and eternal glory everlasting torments. Of
this liberty, St. Thomas Aquinas upon St. John’s Gospel
says thus®: “The word of the Lord by its being the truth,
delivers us from the slavery of believing lies; by its being
the word of grace, frees us from the servitude of sin and
iniquity; but by its being the word of Almighty God, it
delivers us from the bondage of misery. By the first 1t con-
fers the liberty of nature, by the second the liberty of grace,
and by the third the liberty of glory.” Thus that learned
man. The most judicious divines refer this liberty to these
two things; a deliverance from death, which is the wages of

8 [Veritas doctrine liberabit ab
errore falsitatis .... Veritas gratie
liberabit a servitute peccati Sed
veritas zternitatis in Christo Jesu libe-
rabit nos a corruptione.....

... Vera, et spiritualis, que est libertas

IWICKES.

gratiz, que est, carere criminibus, que
est imperfecta,....

.... glorie et perfecta atque plena,
que erit in patria.—S. Thom. Aq.
Comment. in S. Joan, Ev., ¢. viii, Op.,
tom, xiv. pp. 51, 52. ]

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

John 8. 34

Gal. 4. 31.
Gal. 5. 1.

1 Pet, 2. 16.

Rom. 6. 18.

Matt.11, 30.

106 Christian Liberty ; (1.) from sin; (2.) from the Law ;

sin, and from the rigid observance of the law of Moses, par-
ticularly of the ceremonial law. Christian liberty therefore
is of two kinds ; of the former our Lord speaks in the eighth
of St. John, “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever com-
mitteth sin is the servant of sin: and the servant abideth
not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever. If the
Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
Of the latter the blessed Apostle St. Paul speaks in the
fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, where having
explained the type of this liberty, he at last concludes thus:
“We are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.”
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage.” And indeed after all, that is absolute liberty
when we serve God; for which reason to be free and to serve
God only differ in words in the holy Scriptures, but in
reality are the same. St. Peter in his former Epistle ex-
presses himself thus: “ As free, and not using your liberty
for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.”
And St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans calls Christian
liberty “the service of righteousness.” Our Lord in the
Gospel styles it a yoke, but an easy one, that brings saving
health to those that take it upon them; 6 Gvyos wou xpnoTos,
says He, “ My yoke is easy.” Contrary to this is the yoke
of legal impositions, and human inventions, needless bur-
dens which they bind on the consciences of the unskilful,
as St. Augustine’ piously observes in his learned 119th
Epistle to Januarius. ‘ This,” says he, “I am very much
troubled at, that many very wholesome precepts of God’s
word are neglected, and all things are so full of numerous
inventions of men’, that he is more severely reproved, who
in their octaves touches the ground with his bare foot, than
he who buries his mind in drunkenness.” The holy fathers
are also wont to give the name of Christian liberty to that
assurance which is the inseparable companion of a good
conscience: when any one studying only to please God,

h [Hoe nimis doleo, quod multa octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit,
que in divinis libris saluberrime pre- quam qui mentem vinolentia sepelierit.
cepta sunt, minus curantur; et tam —S. Aug. Epist. lv. (al. exix.) ad

multis presumtionibus sic plena sunt Januarium, Op., tom. ii. col. 142, D.j
omnia, ut gravius corripiatur, qui per i Rites not observed in the Church.

Liberty is used also for the boldness of « good conscience. 107

equally despises the favour and the hatred of men. In this casavsox
sense St. Chrysostom, in his third book de Sacerdotio, says’,
“ A priest must take care that he do not seek that post through —““**_
a desire of power, that he may administer all things with
liberty; for he that does not desire to exercise this power
with ostentation, is not afraid of being deposed from it ; and
he that is exempt from this fear, may do all things with
that liberty which becomes Christians.” He afterwards
speaks of the fear which is contrary to this liberty. Petrus
Damianus, in his Epistle to Bishop Firmanus, declaiming [Rather“to
= : : -,, the Bishop
against Pope Leo bearing arms, says*, “ And indeed with ofFirmum,”
what forehead, with what boldness of liberty can any priest ‘at's Fer
engage in a confederacy of such as are at variance; when Italy]
himself does not forgive those that hate him, but thirsts
implacably for revenge?” The same St. Chrysostom does in
another place give the name of liberty to that assurance of
the saints which is procured by good works; as when in
his sermon concerning Babylas, he says this martyr was
superior in liberty, or certainly equal to Elias or St. John;
épOacev ovtws, says he!, bs wndé TO TUXOY aroherPOHvar THs
erevdepias TOY yevvaiwoy éxelvwy avdpov: “He came so
near them, as not to fall short in the least of the liberty of
those brave men.” The same holy father does elsewhere
frequently call this liberty rappnota and tremotOnois™, words
familiar with the Apostle, in the vulgar translation, fiducia
et confidentia, that is, “‘ trust and confidence.”
And that liberty which is ascribed by God to the Church
and assembly of the righteous, may be variously distin-
guished; sometimes the liberty of the Church is called a
free power of meeting together to worship God, wont to

be requested and obtained of the prince.

i [eye d& ob Tod Epyou, THs Bt abev-
tlas Kat dvvacrelas eémibupeiv, elmov
elvat Sewdv. Kad ToTov oluam Seiv Tov
mé0ov mdon amovdy THs Wuxis etwheiv,
kal unde thy apxhy KubacyxeOiva adbthy
tr avrov cvyxwpew iva per erXevdepias
Gravta ait mpdrrew eth. 6 yap ovK
émOupav em tavTns Sex Oqvai THs efou-
alas, ovd€ Thy KaBalpecw avis 5é501Kev"
ov Sedourms Se, weTa THS MpoonKovons
Xpiatiavois eAevOepias, mavTa mparTew
divait’ &v.—S. Chrys. de Sacerdot.,
lib. iii, c. 11. Op., tom. i. p. 388, B.]

What Gregory

k [Et revera qua fronte, qua li-
bertatis audacia sacerdos quilibet in
dissidentium confcederatione desudet,
cum ipse suis osoribus non remissionis
indulgeat veniam, sed effrenetur im-
placabiliter ad vindictam.—Petri Da-
miani Epist. ad Oldericum Episcopum
Firmanum, lib. iv. Ep. 9. Op., tom. i.
p67, B; C2}

' (S. Chrys. lib. de S. Babyla, c. 6,
Op., tom. ii. p. 544, E.]

m [See S. Chrys. in Ep. ad Eph.,
Hom, vii. Op., tom. xi. p. 47, A.)

APPENDIX.
NO. VE.

108 Liberty of the Church ; three senses of it ;

Nazianzen writing to Nectarius called" éfouvciav XaBetv ovr-
a&ews, “to receive power of assembling for divine worship,”
some do now call “liberty of conscience ;” Optatus Milevi-
tanus calls it simply libertas®, “ liberty.” Different from this
is that liberty of the Church, which the fathers of the council
of Ephesus declare to have been given her by Christ; of
which I shall say more in the third chapter. And these are
the liberties of the Church, partly mentioned in the holy
Scriptures, and partly by the venerable fathers of the ancient
Greek and Roman Church. But after the Christian religion
was publicly received, and the clergy endowed with revenues
and dignities, first by emperors, and then by kings and other
nobles, that were Christians ; then indeed among many other
things before unheard of in the Church of God, the word
liberty by little and little began to be taken in a new sense:
for the prerogative of honour, privileges, immunities, and all
such rights they called ecclesiastical liberty, or liberties in
the plural: and this word came at length to be used so
frequently, as none more. When the first use of it was
heard of in the Church shall be mentioned in the fourth
chapter. But what is to be understood by the name of
ecclesiastical liberty, I cannot even yet find clearly enough
explained ; and I often wonder, when there is mention of
this liberty in so many passages of the canon law, that there
is no where added so much as any description to shew the
force of the word, much less an accurate definition of it.
And the interpreters of the canon law have given such dif-
ferent opinions in this matter, that there is no help to be
expected from them. It is manifest, that according as any
of them stood affected to the pope, or to the see of Rome,
he pronounced differently in this matter. In the charters
of those privileges and immunities which the Christian em-
perors, and other princes of old, and afterwards the popes
of Rome were used to grant sometimes to the catholic, and
other while to some particular Church, the use of the words
liber, “free,” and libertas, “ liberty,” is metaphorical, and of

" {S. Greg. Naz., Ep. ecii. ad Nec- lib. i. c. 18. p. 15.]
tarium, Op., tom. ii. p. 168, D.] P (Cone. Ephes. Decretum de Epi-

° [Tempestas persecutionis peracta scopis Cypri (al. Canon. viii.) ap. Con-

..+~Christianis libertas est restituta. cilia, tom. iii. col. 1325, E; quoted
—S, Optat. Milev. de Schism. Donat., below, ¢. iii. sect. 4.]

the third equivalent to privileges and immunities. 109

common form. In the charter of Charles the Great, granted casavzox
to the Church of Osnaburg in Saxony, about the year of our yoo
Lord 804, there are these words’; Insuper eidem episcopo, &c. CHAP: ©
“ Moreover we grant to the same bishop, and to his suc-
cessors, perpetual licence, liberty, and absolution from all

royal command, unless it shall happen that the emperor,” &c.

In that of Nicholas the Second’, given about the year of our

Lord 1060, in favour of the monastery of St. Felicitas of
Florence: Liberum preterea, &c. “ Farther we render the

said monastery free and absolved from all secular and
worldly condition or distress.” In others you read, Liberam
concedimus facultatem ; “we grant a free faculty.” Ht l-

berum esse volumus, “it is our pleasure it shall be free.” I

make no doubt but the appellation of the “liberty of the
Church” came from this original; for they also used the

word “liberty” for “ privilege,’ and as was said before, that

rude and unpolite age made too frequent use of this word;
insomuch that we are sometimes put to guess what they
meant by it. In an edict of Frederic Ahenobarbus, made in

the year 1222, for the uniting of two monasteries, are these

words ; Yurbatores temerarios nostre hujus libertatiss, &c. :

“The rash disturbers of this our liberty we proscribe for ever

as rebels to God:” after he calls it, “concession and dona-

tion.” Likewise “ privilege” and “liberty” are often joined
together, or “liberty” and “immunity,” as in the Decretal de
Immunitate, Sexti lib. ii." Also “ rights” and “liberties",” ibid.

In Rigordus*, the “ liberty of soldiers,” and the “liberty and
especial prerogative of scholars,” at Paris under King Philip

t [Libertatem et immunitatem eccle-

4 [Insuper eidem episcopo ejusque
siasticam Jadere ac minuere tanquam

successoribus perpetuam concedimus

(licentiam) libertatem, et ab omni regali
imperio absolutionem: nisi forte con-
tingat, ut imperator, &c.— Privilegium
Eccl. Osnab. ap. Crantzii Hist. Eccl.
Saxon., lib. i. ec. 2. et Baronii Annales
ann. 804, num. 18. }

r { Liberum preterea idem reddimus
monasterium, atque absolutum ab omni
seculari et mundana conditione, sive
districtione.—Nicolai Pape VI. Ibid.,
ann. 1060, num. 2. |

5 { This edict the editor has not found.
There seems to be an error in the text,
Frederic Barbarossa (Ahenobarbus)
reigned from 1155 to 1199, Frederic
IT. from 1220 to 1250. ]

honoris et privilegii ecclesiarum invidi
moliuntur.—Sexti Decretalium, lib. iii.
Tit. xxiii. de Immunitate Ecclesiarum,
&c., cap. i. ap. Corpus Jur. Can., tom.
iii.

: [Juris sui et libertatis.—Ibid. ]

x [Milites qui olim sua libertate
gaudere consueverant.—Rigordus de
Gestis Philippi Augusti Francorum
Regis anno xix. ap. Historie Franco-
rum Scriptores, Pithai, p. 201. Fran-
cof. 1596. —Propter libertatem et speci-
alem prerogativam defensionis, quam
Philippus rex et pater ejus ante ipsum
ipsis scholaribus impendebant.—[bid.,
ann, xxii, p. 207. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

110 Instances of liberty used in a doubtful sense.

Augustus, and his father. What that Boniface, who is called
the Apostle of the Germans, means by “ secular liberties,”
may not without reason be doubted. So in his Epistle to
Eadburga surnamed Bugga, cousin to the king of Kent’:
“It is better in my opinion, if by reason of secular liberties
you can by no means enjoy the liberty of a quiet mind in
your own country, that by going abroad, if it be m your
power, you get the liberty of contemplation.” And TI yet less
understand that which is written in Gregory VII.’s Epistle
to P., archbishop of Albano, and G., prince of Salerno,
viz., Item magnus imperator, &c.: “ Also the great emperor”
(speaking of Charles the Great) “ offered Saxony to St. Peter.
And he got a victory by his help, and erected a monument
of devotion and hberty, as the Saxons themselves have it
written, and the learned among them very well know;” that
is, of his own devotion, and of the liberty and dominion of
the Church of Rome, which she has over all persons and
things. If any one thinks fit to interpret it otherwise, I am
content ; for it is a very obscure passage. Nor is that much
plainer in the charter of Urban II., which confirms the deed
of Count Berengarius, who by his authority and advice, as
Urban himself attests, submitted the city of Tarracona, and
the country about it, to the jurisdiction of the pope. ‘ We
therefore,” says he*, “who by God’s assistance desire to be
the fellow-workers of this restitution, do commend the pur-
pose of the said count, and the liberties and customs which
he is known to have proclaimed to the new inhabitants of
Tarracona.” It is therefore from that manner of speaking,
that libertas Ecclesiastica, “the liberty of the Church” came

to be so called in the Latin

y [Melius mihi videtur, si propter
libertates seculares in patria libertatem
quietz mentis habere nullatenus possis,
ut peregrinatione libertatem contem-
plationis, si valueris et possis, acquiras.
—Ap. Baronii Annales, ann. 725.
num. 24, (et S. Bonifacii Epist. xx. ad
Buggan, p. 28. Mogunt. 1605, in which
libertates is omitted.) ]

* [Item Magnus Imperator (speak-
ing of Charlemagne) Saxoniam obtulit
beato Petro: ejus etiam devicit adju-
torio, et posuit signum devotionis et
libertatis, sicut Saxones ipsi habent

Church: for the Greeks not

scriptum, et prudentes illorum satis
sciunt.—S. Gregorii Pape VII. Epist.,
lib. viii. Ep. 23, apud Concilia, tom.
xii. col. 505, A. |

a {Nos itaque, qui prestante Deo,
restitutionis hujus optamus coopera-
tores existere pradicti comitis insti-
tutum libertatesque et consuetudines,
quas novis Tarraconensis urbis colonis
permulgasse cognoscitur, collaudamus.
—Urbani Pape II. Epist. vii. ad Be-
rengarium; Ibid., col. 917, D. et ap
Baronii Annales, ann. 1091, num. 11. |

The Greek terms for the immunities of the Church. 111

knowing the thing, were also ignorant of the name. I speak casavgox
of that liberty of the Church which is so much talked of oo
at present, and peculiarly so called. For they are in a great “*""_
error, who confound this liberty with the power of the Church,
with her right of enjoying goods of all sorts, and with her
privileges and immunities. The true power of the Church,
concerning which there is an excellent book of John Gerson”,
(an admirable divine,) is that which St. Chrysostom, treating
of the sacerdotal office, distinguishes into épyor, “office,” and
apxny or Tyna, “rule’’ or “honour’.” “ The function itself of
the priestly office, and the honour which is due to priests,” of
which more in the next chapter: he also calls it av@evteia’,
“ authority.” Whether this power be of divine right or no,
cannot be disputed without blasphemy; since all good men
are persuaded, that Christ did from the beginning grant it
to His Church, and to her ministers. But whether the
liberty of the Church be of divine right, has been long dis-
puted among the interpreters of the canon law, and remains
still undecided. And indeed it may well seem absurd to
most men, to say, that that has been introduced by divine
right, which the purer Church knew nothing of for so many
ages. A right of possessing (temporal) goods is in the canons
of the Greeks called décacov xtjcews, “right of possession,”
or KaToyys, immunitas, “immunity of holding possession,”
aTéXela TOV NEeLTOUpYLo”, “ immunity from offices,” or simply
atéXeva, “immunity,” or adevtoupyncia, “exemption from
all public offices.” Privileges are there called wpovoysa, and
hrrotipynpata Baciréwv, “royal privileges and donations,”
dlkava or dixatdpara, “legal rights or grants.” Sometimes
also trapapvOiat, “ additional encouragements,”’ above what
is strictly due. And as I have shewed that liberty is used for
privilege, so have I observed privileges indulged to certain
monasteries by the emperors of Constantinople, to be called
éXevGepia and avto£ova.oTns, “liberty” and “ the freedom of
one’s own will,” in books of the Greek canon law. There is a
constitution of the Greek emperor Alexius Comnenus 4%, in

b [Tractatus de Potestate Eccle- 10. Op., tom. i. p. 388, B.]

siastica et origine juris et legum.— a |Constitutiones Imperatoriz Alexii

Joan. Gerson, Op., tom. ii. pars 2. Comneni x. de oblationibus et aliis

pp. 225, sqq. Antw. 1706. ] ecclesiasticis juribus.—Ap. Corp. Jur.
c

{S. Chrys. de Sacerd., lib. iii, c. Civilis. (Novell. Imp. Alex, Comn.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

112 The word Church used in five different senses.

which there is mention of monasteries instituted, either xaT
ériSoow, with respect to their revenues, or, cat’ épopeiar,
with respect to their being visited, or, cat’ oixovoyiay, with
respect to their government, tavtedos Kat’ €devOepiav, in
all respects perfectly free, which therefore he calls éXev@epa
Kab adteEovota povactypia, “ free and exempt monasteries.”
But far different from this is that ecclesiastical liberty of
which I am now treating; and whose nature and force they
who have attempted to comprehend in one simple definition,
have, if I may say the truth, been guilty of great trifling :
for what else is it, to endeavour to define an equivocal word,
without first applying a distinction? or who can deny that
there is a manifold signification in this word ?

How variously the word liberty is taken, I have shewed
already. The same must be necessarily observed here con-
cerning the word Church: for as many ways as this word
is used to be taken, so many different definitions will there
be also of the liberty of the Church. Properly the Church is
called “a congregation,” cAnTav ayiwy, as the Apostles speak,
that is, of the faithful called to be saints; who are also
called “ the elect.” But because in this life we are mingled
good and bad together, therefore under the appellation of
the Church all are wont to be comprehended who profess
the name of Christ. A third notion has long since obtained,
that the flock of the faithful bemg divided iato clergy and
laity, only the clergy as the better and nobler part should
be understood by the name of the Church. Then a fourth
and a fifth sense came to be used, and are now very common ;
the former, when the Church is put for the Romish Church ;
the latter, when only for the pope of Rome. The three first
acceptations of the word are common to the Greek and
Latin Church, as also that manner of speaking, by which
consecrated places are called Churches, was of old used
both by Greeks and Latins. And the fourth acceptation,
for the honour of St. Peter and the authority of the Church
of Rome, has for several ages past begun to be in use with
many even in the east, and throughout all.the west. The
fifth has not been approved of by all even in the west, but

viii. de jure Patriarcharum in Monas- tom. i. p. 141, Francof. 1596.) ]
teria, ap. Leunclavii Jur. Gree. Rom.,

So the Liberty of the Church has different meanings. 113

only by such as acknowledge the pope of Rome to be the
head and prince, and even sovereign lord of the universal
Church. When in the capitulars of the ancient kings, and
in the writers of that time, the liberty of the Church and
the liberty of elections are mentioned and put for the same
thing, this is meant of the liberty given by Christ to the
universal Church: and although it was very long the custom
for such as were to be admitted into holy orders, to be
chosen by the common suflrages of the clergy and people,
yet afterwards this custom was changed, and the right of
suffrages was transferred wholly to the clergy. Thus accord-
ing to the time this liberty has altered, though it was always
called the liberty of the Church, viz., in the third accepta-
tion of the word, not as before in the first and second.
Innocent III. in his Epistle to the Empress Constantia,
queen of Sicily’, prescribing the manner he would have
observed by the Sicilians in making their elections, calls it
the “canonical liberty” of the Church. They who under-
stand by the liberty of the Church, “an exemption of the
clergy from all subjection to their lawful princes,” which is
the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine in a treatise published
on that subject‘, as well as of many others, take the word
Church in the third sense. Which though it may seem to
be done not unjustly, because that signification of the word
has long obtained, yet it is attended with dangerous designs,
because under the countenance of the word Church, the un-
skilful. and common people are persuaded, that the liberty
of the universal Church is concerned in this matter, to
oppose which were the utmost impiety; whereas in reality
it is only the liberty, nay the licentiousness of a few, and
the absolute dominion of one, that is maintained under this
pretence. Insomuch that they who consider the matter
diligently, will clearly perceive that these patrons of eccle-

e [Innocentii Pape III. Epist., lib.
i. 411. tom. i. p. 242. Paris. 1682. ]

f [See Bellarmine, Controy. ii. lib. i.
De clericis, lib, ii. capp. xxviii.—xxx.
Op., tom. ii. pp. 160, sqq., (printed also
as a Disputatio de Exemptione Cleri-
corum, inthe Opuscula Bellarmini, Op.,
tom. ii.'p. 496.) The heading of e. xxviii.
is, An Clerici sint liberi a jugo potes-

HICKES,

tatis seecularis; he says, (p. 160, col. 2,
D,) Heretici multi contendunt clericos
tum majores tum minores, jure sub-
jectos esse debere szeculari potestati,
tum in solvendis tributis tum in ju-
diciis et causis; and the third proposi-
tion (p. 161, col. 2, B) is, Non pos-
sunt clerici a judice seculari judicari,
etiam si leges civiles non servent. |

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,
CHAP. I.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

114 Some by liberty of the Church mean that of the pope ;

siastical liberty take the word Church in the fifth sense,
for the pope of Rome only. For it is for him alone that
plenary liberty, for him alone that empire, for him alone
that power is procured, without end, without measure, over
the lives, and estates, and fortunes of emperors, kings, and
princes, and of all persons whatever, who desire to be called
Christians throughout the whole world. For if any one
object that Cardinal Bellarmine teaches far differently im
his fifth book De summo Pontifice£; for this objection we
have a most sure answer prepared, of which more in the
sixth chapter and those following: there I shall shew, that
what the Cardinal asserts in that book is so far disallowed,
and daily refuted by the most zealous patrons of this liberty,
that it is all to be accounted as unsaid and out of date.
Alexander Pesantius, a Roman, in his book de Immunitate
Ecclesiastica, et Potestate Romani Pontificis", which not very
long since he dedicated to Paul V. p. 45 of the Roman
edition, says, Dico summus pont. &c.: “I say, the pope has
by divine right most full power over the whole earth, as well
in ecclesiastical matters as political.” And in the margin
of the book the author has this note: ‘The pope is by
divine right directly lord over the universe.” The same
say many others. But let us proceed to shew the use of
this expression. These are Gregory VII.’s words in his
Epistle to the bishop of Passau, and [the'] abbot of Hir-
saug, where he speaks of the Germans electing an emperor
in the room of Henry. “We know,” says he*, “that our
brethren are wearied with a long contest, and with divers
disturbances; yet it is discovered to be more noble to con-
tend a long time for the liberty of holy Church, than to lie

& [Bellarmine maintains, De Ro-
mano Pontifice, lib. vy. (de Potestate
Pontificis temporali,) c. 2. Papam non
esse dominum totius mundi: ¢. 38.
Papam non esse dominum totius or-
bis Christiani: ¢. 4, Papam non ha-
bere ullam mere temporalem juris-
dictionem directe jure divino,—Op.,
tom. i. pp. 433, sqq. |

n [The editor has not been able to
see a copy of this work. ]

i [The word “the” is added in this
edition; they were distinct persons. |

k {Scimus quod fratres nostri longo

jacere.

certamine, diversisque perturbationi-
bus fatigantur: nobilius tamen esse
dignoscitur, multo tempore pro liber-
tate Sanctz Ecclesie decertare, quam
miseree ac diabolicze servituti sub-
j Certant namque miseri, sci-
licet membra_ diaboli, ut “ejusdem
misera servitute opprimantur: certant
e contra membra Christi, ut eosdem
miseros Christianam libertatem redu-
cant.—S. Greg. VII. Epist. (lib. ix. 3.)
ad Episcopum Passaviensemn et Abba-
tem Hirsaugiensem; et ap. Baronii An-
nales, ann. 1081, num. 9. |

others that of the universal Church. 115

under a lamentable and ‘diabolical servitude: for on one
hand, those wretched persons, to wit, members of the devil,
contend, that they may be oppressed by his miserable slavery :
on the other, the members of Christ contend, that they may
bring back those wretched persons to Christian liberty.” Fair
words but afoul meaning. The liberty of the Church pro-
perly so called is made show of, and a diabolical slavery is
lamented. What Christian will be so stupid, whom those
words will not stir up, and inflame him with hatred against
his prince? But we must remember, that in this place, and
other such like, the investiture of the clergy is spoken of,
of which the pope of Rome had robbed the emperor and
all other princes, and challenged it to himself alone, and
those who derived their right from him. And this is called
“the proper liberty of the Church!” in a certain canon of
that council which the same Pope Hildebrand held at Rome
in the year of our Lord 1080. Here therefore, and in other
passages akin to this, the Church is taken for the pope; and
those rights which he claims to himself as the vicar of Christ,
God and man, are called Christian liberty. On the contrary
in the year 1157, the Emperor Frederick, upon a difference
arisen between the State and the Church, writes thus to
the princes of the empire™: ‘‘ Because we have hitherto en-
deayoured to rescue the honour and liberty of the Churches
(now a long time oppressed with the yoke of unjust servi-
tude) from the hand of the Egyptians, (he means Pope
Adrian IV.,) and intend to preserve to them all the rights
of their dignities, we desire you all to condole with us so
great an ignominy to us and the empire.” Here Frederick
understands by the Church, either the universal Church, of
which he himself was a part, or only the clergy. And so
you will observe very often in the histories of what has
happened since the times of Gregory VII., when there were
most grievous dissensions between the popes and princes,
and they were often at war with each other; yet on both

1 [Eeclesize propriam libertatem di-
mittat.—Concil. Rom. vii. (A.D. 1080)
Canon ii. ap. Concilia, tom. xii. p. 635,
E. et ap. Baron. ann. 1086, num. 10. ]

m [Quia hactenus honorem ac liber-
tatem ecclesiarum, que jamdiu inde-
bite servitutis jugo depressa est, a

manu /Egyptiorum studuimus eripere,
et omnia eis dignitatum suarum jura
conservare intendimus; universitatem
vestram super tanta ignominia nobis
et imperio condolere rogamus,—Literze
Cire. Fred. ap. Baronii Annales, ann,
1157, num. 14. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL,

CHAP. I.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

116 The liberty of the Church sometimes used in opposition

sides the defence of the liberty of the Church was the pre-
tence of the war. So true is what was said by that most
wise orator Demosthenes", in his Oration contra Leptinem,
“that many are wont petadépovras Ta dvouata amatay, to
deceive by changing the signification of words.” Tor there
are many who use the names of things just as jugglers do
their balls and goblets. And that Frederick defended the
liberty of the Church even those cardinals attest, who wrote
an epistle which begins thus®: Ex guo contra honorem Ec-
clesie, &c.: “Since the time that, contrary to the honour
of God’s Church and of the empire, friendship was made
between our Lord Pope Adrian and William of Sicily,” &c.
We shall shew in the sequel, that the honour of the Church,
and the liberty of the Church, are used to be taken for the
same thing. The cardinal presbyters therefore sayP: “ But
we on the contrary thought it meet, rather that the Sicilian
should be excommunicated, who had violently taken away
all the rights of the Church, both spiritual and temporal;
than the emperor who hath taken true pains to recover the
rights of the Roman Church and of the empire, and to re-
store the Church from servitude to liberty.” So that, if we
believe these cardinals, the pope did only in show defend
the liberty of the Church, but Frederick did it in reality.
Nor ought this to seem strange to any one: for not only
this, but many other emperors, and many kings of France
and England, and other nations have been obliged to con-
tend with the popes of Rome for the liberty of the Church,
in which contest, though the cause of all Christians was the
same, yet they had not every one always the same mind, nor
the like constancy. As to the most Christian kings, the
bishops, and all the clergy and nobility of France, it is their
peculiar praise, (I say it without flattery,) that with an heroic
piety and religious generosity they have, by the blessing of

n [See Demosth. contr. Lept. Orat.,
pp. 491,16; 495, 13, ed. Reisk. ] ;

° [Ex quo contra honorem ecclesiz
Deiet imperii, amicitia inter Dominum
Papam Hadrianum et Wilhelmum Si-
culum facta est, Xc.—Epist. Cardina-
lium; Radevici de gestis Frederici I.
Imp., lib. ii. ¢. 52. p. 321. Basil,1569; et
ap. Baronii Annales, ann.1 156,num. 15. |

P [Nos autem e contra duximus
potius Siculum excommunicandum,
qui omnia jura ecclesiz, tam spiritu-
alia, quam temporalia violenter abstu-
lerat; quam imperatorem, qui ecclesiz
Romane et Imperii jura fideliter labo-
rabat recuperare, et Ecclesiam de ser-
vitute ad libertatem reducere.—Ibid. |

to the power of the pope ; as the Gallican liberties. 117

God, preserved the Christian liberty of their Church, if not
wholly untouched, yet firm and unshaken to this day: who
that dwells even in the most remote regions, and has re-
ceived but the slightest account of the affairs of France, has
not heard something of the liberties of the Gallican Church ?
so in the language of the law are the rights of ecclesiastical
liberty called; which though they were from the beginning
to the universal Church, (for they have all one and the same
author and founder, Jesus Christ,) yet by a certain fate it has
happened, that in all the noblest kingdoms of Europe the
Churches have suffered their rights and liberties to be taken
from them; whence it is come to pass, that while the neigh-
bouring people groan under their servitude, the name of the
liberties of the Gallican Church has been celebrated with
great fame, even among far distant nations. Although other
kingdoms likewise have done the same, but more remissly,
and with less success. Thus in the histories of England,
there is mention of the liberties of that Church, and of the
liberties of the kingdom: which yet were of little advantage
to them against the oppression and exactions of the pope of
Rome. There are very many monuments of theirs extant,
in which with grievous lamentation they bemoan the burdens

laid upon them by the Roman pontiff or his legates. But
this shall be clearly shewn in its proper place.
To return therefore from this digression. They who by

ecclesiastical liberty will have meant the exemption of eccle-
siastics, do accurately explain the force of this exemption ;
and that is, that he who was just now subject to this or that
prince, as soon as he is got into any of the sacred orders,
does in an instant become free from all jurisdiction of that
prince; no more owns him for his sovereign, reverences his
majesty no farther than he pleases, pays him no tribute4,
nor has any fear of his laws; for it is expressly affirmed,
“that the clergy are obliged to no temporal laws whatever,
as to their coercive, but only with respect to their directive
power'.” What if any clergyman (for it may happen) should

4 [ Bellarmine’s fourth proposition is,
Bona clericorum tam _ ecclesiastica,
quam secularia libera sunt, ac merito
esse debent, a tributis principum szcu-
larium. De Clericis, lib. i. c. 28. Op.,

tom. ii. p. 162, D.]

t {See Bellarmine as quoted above,
p-118, note f. His second proposition is,
Non sunt exempti clerici ab obligatione
legum civilium qua non repugnant

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. I.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

118 Now used for the exemption of ecclesiastics from civil

commit some crime worthy of punishment in the State?
What if any of them should be scandalous for debauchery ?
Shall the prince have no power to punish him? No; it is
precisely determined he shall not. These are the words of
John Mariana’ the Spanish Jesuit, in the first book and
tenth chapter of that elegant treatise, in which he lays down
instructions for Philip III. king of Spain: “Farther the
prince is obliged to take care, that the rights and immunities
of the sacred order be untouched: let him subject none of
the sacred order to punishment, though he deserve it.” But
what need we go into Spain? For we cannot learn the
meaning of the Roman pontifical law better from any place
than from the city of Rome, especially since many very
learned men have within a few months published books
there, which will not permit us to be ignorant of the force
of this exemption. Among many late authors whose writings
I have perused, Johannes Antonius Bovius', a Carmelite,
alone expresses the thing so very plainly in my opinion,
that it were a great crime to pass over what he says, which
I shall therefore give you here faithfully translated from the
Italian ; “ Liberty is opposed to necessity, to bondage, or [to |
servitude ; therefore as the liberty from sin consists in this,

sacris canonibus, vel officio clericali.
He says, nec volumus dicere, his legi-
bus teneri clericos obligatione coactiva,
sed tantum directiva. De Clericis, lib.
i. c. 28. Op., tom. ii. p. 161, col. i. E.]

s [Deinde sacrati ordinis immuni-
tates et jura intacta ut sint, curare
princeps debet. Neminem ex sacrato
ordine supplicio quamvis merito sub-
jiciat.—Johannis Marianze MHisp., e
Soc. Jesu, de Rege et Regis Institu-
tione, lib. i. c. 10. p. 88. Mogunt.
1605. |

* [Liberté si oppone a necessita,
legame, o servithk. Come dunque la
liberta del peccato consiste in essere
sciolto dal legame del peceato, et la
liberta dalla legee Mosaica in essere
noi sciolti, et scarichi del giogo delle
ceremonie legali: cosi Ja liberta Eccle-
siastica consiste in essere gli Ecclesi-
astici nelle lore persone, beni, et cause,
esenti, et non soggetti alle leggi, po-
testa, e giuridittione de’ Prencipi seco-
lari in quel modo che soggetti vi sono
i Laici. Et questa é la vera, et pro-

pria descrittione della liberta Ecclesi-
astica, che in virt’ contiene il tutto.
Le altre due parti, che seguono, sono
pit tosto dichiarationi di questa.
Quello che dice Bartolo nell’auth.
Cassa, essere contra la liberta Ecclesi-
astica gli Statuti, per li quali gli
Ecclesiastici si rendono pit timidi, et
i Laici pid arditi; vuol dire, che per la
esentione che hanno dalla potesta loro
gli Ecclesiastici, non solo non possono
i Principi direttamente et in effetto
pormano in essi, et nelle cose loro,
ma ne anco indirettamente, et in appa-
renza pregiudicare alla loro liberta.
Il dird, se saprd. Vuol dire, che non
solo non possono loro far danno, ma
ne anco ombra, 0 paura.—Risposta del
P. Maestro Gio. Antonio Bovio da
novara Carmelitano alle considerationi
dei padre Maestro Paolo da Venetia
sopra le censure della santita di Papa
Paolo V. contra la Republica di Ve-
netia in Roma. 1606, con Licenza de
i Superiori, p. 27. ]

power ; instances of a contrary use in the canon law. 119

that we are freed from the bonds of sin, and the liberty from
the Mosaic law in this, that we are freed and exonerated
from the yoke of the ceremonial law, so the liberty of the
Church does herein consist, that ecclesiastics are exempt in
their persons, goods, and causes, and are not obnoxious to
the laws, power, and jurisdiction of princes, as laics are; and
this is the true and proper definition of the liberty of the
Church, which extends to all this, the two remaining parts
which follow have the force of a declaration. And as to what
Bartolus says, (dn dAuthent. Caus.,) that those statutes are
repugnant to the liberty of the Church, by which ecclesias-
tics are intimidated, and laics emboldened: this is his mean-
ing, that by the right of exemption which ecclesiastics enjoy,
it comes to pass, that princes cannot, I will not say directly
and with effect lay hands upon their persons and estates, but
that they have not power so much as indirectly, or even in
pretence only to do any prejudice to their liberty. If it be
possible I will speak yet more plainly; Bartolus means to say,
that princes are so little empowered to do any damage to the
clergy, that they have no right so much as in the lightest
manner to terrify or affright them.” How justly or unjustly
these things are affirmed, I shall hereafter enquire. It is
certain we have here a manifest declaration of the exemption
of the clergy, and of a full and perfect licentious liberty.
And yet all things that are established in the canon law for
the sake of ecclesiastical liberty, cannot be referred to the
exemption of ecclesiastics.

Boniface VIII., the most strenuous assertor of this liberty,
says", (In Sexto, tit. 23,) “Those who having temporal domi-
nion at any time, forbid their subjects to sell any thing to
prelates, clerks, or ecclesiastical persons, or buy any thing of
them, or grind them corn, or bake bread for them, or pre-
sume to do them other services; since such things are pre-
sumed in derogation of the liberty of the Church, we decree
they shall on that very account lie under a sentence of ex-

« (Eos, qui temporale dominium quum talia in derogationem Libertatis

obtinentes, suis subditis, ne przlatis,
aut clericis, seu personis ecclesiasticis
quicquam vendant, aut emant aliquid
ab eisdem, ne ipsis bladum molant, co-
quant panem, aut alia obsequia exhi-
bere presumant, aliquando interdicunt :

Eeclesiasticee prasumantur, eo ipso
excommunieationis sententiz decerni-
mus subjacere.—Liber Sextus Decre-
talium D. Bonifacii Pape VIII., lib.
ili. tit. 25. cap. 5. ap. Corp. Jur. Can.,
tom. iii. |

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.

CHAP. I.

120 Definition of ecclesiastical liberty in the modern sense.

APPENDIX. COMMUNIcation.”

To complete the definition of ecclesiastical
NO. VI.

liberty, this decretal was not to be passed by, which is not
indeed concerning the right of exemptions, but adds as it
were the last hand to the prerogative of the clergy; for if all
laymen, of what dignity or degree soever, may be condemned
to eternal flames for things of so little moment, what else
have they to take care of, from the lowest to the highest,
besides this one thing, by what means they may be able to
pacify the clergy? And in my opinion they will be able to
do this, if they submit to them in all things, be slaves to
their will, and allow them liberty to determine as they please
concerning their affairs. That Boniface by that canon in-
tended thus much none will deny.

From what we have hitherto said we at last infer that his
error will not be far different from the opinion of the modern
doctors of the pontifical law, who shall frame this, whether
description or definition of ecclesiastical liberty: ‘“ Ecclesias-
tical liberty is a certain right primarily indeed adhering to
the pope of Rome, by which he obtains the dominion of all
the world; but secondarily to ecclesiastics, by which they
are jointly and severally exempt, themselves and their goods,
from all subjection, jurisdiction, and power of all princes;
and laics are rendered obnoxious to them for all kinds of
services.” Though this definition be not perfect in all its
parts, which we do not promise, yet it sufficiently explains
the force of that, which by the moderns and men of the last
ages is called the liberty of the Church. Now therefore it
remains to be enquired, at what time, by what endeavours,
and by whom this liberty was brought into the Church;
then we will consider the chief reasons which are wont to
be alleged by the patrons of it, and also briefly shew how
dangerous a thing both to the Christian Church and State
such a licentious liberty is.

CHAP. II.

WHAT, AND OF WHAT KIND THE LIBERTY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH WAS,
FROM ITS FIRST RISE TO THE TIMES OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. A
COMPARISON OF BOTH POWERS, ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL, AND CON-
CERNING THE RIGHT OF EACH, AS WELL ORDINARY AS EXTRAORDINARY.

Havine explained the various measures of that liberty
which is wont to be called Christian or ecclesiastical, before
I undertake to shew what kind of liberty particularly every
age of the Church used, I think it necessary in a few words
to compare the sacerdotal power with the civil: for the State
also has its liberty, which how it differs from that of the
Church, will evidently appear from this comparison. There-
fore that in an argument of so large extent I may not
wander farther than is necessary for my purpose, I will lay
down certain theorems, or (as they speak in the schools)
conclusions, comprehending the virtue and rights of each
power, and add a brief explication and proof to each
theorem.

I. The Church and the State differ sometimes both in reality
and conception ; sometimes in conception only.

What Optatus Milevitanus* said, that “the Church is in
the State,” is indeed most true, but wants explication: for
sometimes the Church is so in the State that it has its
peculiar interests wholly separate from those of the State ;
which was the condition of the Church in her infancy, before
the doctrine of salvation had subdued the stubborn minds,
and overcome the obstinacy of the infidels. Sometimes the
Church is so in the State that it is in some respect the State
itself, as it then happened, when the darkness of the pagan
errors being dispelled, the profession of Christianity was
generally embraced by all: for from that time the people
which constitute the State were also the Church: but that
for a different reason and end, as will be shewn presently.
So that they are the same in some respect, and not the
same. Authors here do not always observe the propriety
of words, but either ascribe those things to the State which

* [Non enim Respublica est in est.—S. Optat. Milev. de Schism.

Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in Republica Donat., lib. iii. c. 3. p. 52.]
HICKES. R

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II,

SECT. I.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

[ Orig.
™pon'you-
peeves. |

[ Orig.
KaTeTaKo-
Aovenpa.. |

122 The Church and State distinct: in their ends ;

belong to the Church, or those to the Church which apper-
tain to the State. In a synodical Epistle to Lewis king of
France, son of Charles, the king himself is styled “ Ruler of
the holy Church of Gody.” But the king is not properly
ruler of the Church, but of the State chiefly and primarily,
and of the Church as it is a part and appendage of the
State: but there and elsewhere frequently the king is called
“ Defender of the Church,” and that properly.

II. In every society, which has different ends, the same persons
may in different respects both be superiors and subjects.

Societies set up by men, whether private or public, have
sometimes one single end, sometimes more. When pas-
sengers go on board a vessel to cross the seas, or pass
over a river, they are understood to have entered into a
tacit society, the only and simple end of which is their
passage. When a regiment of marimes embark to fight
with an enemy, here is a two-fold society, and a double
end: as they are all passengers, they are in subjection to
the captain of the ship; as soldiers, to their proper officer,
who himself, in respect of the governor of the ship, is only
a passenger, and his as well as all their safety depends upon
the skill and art of him that sits at the helm; and yet he
also, with regard to military command, is subject to the
colonel of the regiment, and obeys his orders. Now the
Church and State have the resemblance of a ship, and are
frequently represented by the ancients under that similitude.
Before the gospel was received the State had only one end,
which was to spend this life with as much convenience and
reputation as was possible, that being the end for which
nature incited men to institute societies. Aristotle some-
times calls it avtapxeva’, as much as to say, a sufficient
plenty of all things; sometimes the good of mankind, which
consists in the fruition of those endowments of the body and
mind, of which nature framed man fit to participate in this
life: I say in this life, because the primary end of civil

y [Gloriosissimo et Christianissimo devotum in servitio Dei concessit ha-

imperatori Carolo augusto vere reli- bere rectorem.—Cone. Mogunt. (A.D.
gionis rectori, ac defensori sancte Dei 813) Prefat. Concilia, tom. ix. col.
ecclesiz, una cum prole sua... gra- 328, B, C.]

tias agimus Deo Patri omnipotenti, z [ Aristot. Polit. i. 2. 8, sqq. ]

quia sanctz ecclesia su tam pium ac

in their condition, constitution, and governors. 123

instruction extends nofarther. But there is besides another casavsoy
good of mankind, for the participation of which, since God “voor.
had first created man fit, and he lost that fitness by his own (UAT it
fault, by the inestimable benefit of our Saviour Christ he has
recovered the same fitness, and indeed more effectually.
That good is the blessed state which is reserved for good
men in the next life, to the hope of which, what we style the
Church in the world and within the State, is called by the
voice of Christ Himself. As the end for which civil society
is instituted is the obtaining of human good; so the worship
of God, and our preparation for future happiness, is the end
of instituting a Church; nor are the Church and State
distinguished only by their different ends: but also by their
condition, constitution, and government. The State is in
this world, as in its own lawful country ; seeks riches, and
all the necessaries of this life, procures itself power, and pro-
motes its own ends as far as it can: for in that men com-
monly think the good of mankind, now mentioned from
Aristotle, consists. The Church, “following the prize of Phil. 3. 14.
the high-calling,” as the Apostle speaks, and incessantly
turning all its hopes and thoughts to the fruition of a better
life, does not enjoy earthly goods, but only uses them; nor
dwells in this world as in its own country, but sojourns in
it as a stranger or foreigner, not as a citizen. Hence the
fathers often call the Church by another name, the “ city of
God :”’ for it has its “conversation (franchises and freedom) [Orig. 7o-
in heaven,” as the same Apostle speaks; and the Church has beget
learned of Christ her King to say, “my kingdom is not of Jonn18.36.
this world.”

This diversity, which is so great, does also require different
governors: they who govern the Church are by a common
name styled priests (or bishops), and they princes who rule
the State. The different duties of these governors depend
on the difference of the ends now mentioned, and on the
diversity of the subject matter about which they are con-
versant. or, as Synesius says*, “the political faculty is
conversant about matter,” that is, about human and worldly [Orig

vAnY.
« [robs pev eis BAnv éméotpefe, Tors — elvau.—Synesii Epist. 57. Op., p. 198,

be cuverakey EavT@, TeTaXaTat Se oi wey D, Paris, 1631. |
ev Tois Tpayuaolv, Nuers Oe ev Tals Ev ats

APPENDIX,

NO. VI.

124 Distinct offices of ecclesiastical and civil rulers ;

things, or (as divines use to speak) about secular affairs.
“The priesthood,” says the same author, is conversant “about
God,” that is, divine matters, or at least about human, as
they are joined with divine. Whatever therefore appertains
to things divine, is properly under the priest’s jurisdiction ;
and on the contrary, all things that belong to the public estate,
or to the goods, interests, and advantages of private persons,
are under that of the prince. And because the Church is
in the State, as a part in the whole, therefore its defence and
preservation will so much the more belong to the duty of
the prince as this is the more noble part of the State, and as
it is of more concern, that this be preserved and defended.
Lastly, (saith he>,) in things merely divine, the priests obtain
a plenary power, the prince must be one of their flock: but
in civil affairs the priest by common right shall be ranked
with the rest of the people, unless by the prince’s favour
any privileges or prerogatives of honour are indulged to him.
Hence it necessarily follows, that a Christian prince is subject
to the sacred laws and canons of the Catholic Church, and a
priest to the civil and political laws. This is the doctrine
and opinion of Pope Gelasius, who about the year of our
Lord 412, succeeded Felix in the administration of the apo-
stolic see: for thus he writes to the Emperor Anastasius ° ;
“There are two things, great emperor, by which chiefly this
world is governed, the sacred authority of the bishops and
the regal power; in which the burden of the bishops is so
much the more weighty, as in the divine inquest they are to
give an account to our Lord, even for kings themselves : for
you know, most gracious son, that though in dignity you
preside over mankind, yet you devoutly submit yourself to
those that preside in divine matters, and desire of them the
means of your salvation; and in the participation of the
heavenly Sacraments, and in the due dispensation of them,
you know that by the order of religion you ought to be
subject rather than to preside. You know therefore, that
with respect to these things you depend upon their judg-
ment, and that they must not be brought to your will: for

* [The words ‘‘saith he,” are added Anastasium Imperatorem ; ap.Concilia,
by the translator wrongly; these are tom. v. col. 308, C, D; quoted above,
not the words of Synesius. | vol. ii. p. 349, note u. }

their mutual subordination, in different respects. 125

if {as respects the order of public discipline] even those who
preside in religious matters, knowing that the empire was
conferred upon you from on high, obey the laws, lest even
in things of this world they should seem to oppose the
determination of Heaven; I beseech you with what affection
ought you to obey these spiritual governors, who are ap-
pointed to dispense the holy mysteries?” You see it is most
manifestly the opinion of Gelasius, that where salvation is
concerned, that is, in spiritual matters, the emperor ought
to submit: in all others, that the bishop must obey the
command of the prince, whose power in the State I shall
hereafter shew to be supreme.

But here we meet with the patrons of that exemption of
the clergy, which is now called the liberty of the Church,
who cry out that it is a thing absurd, that they who
administer spiritual things should be subject to those who
manage things that are temporal. But these acute men
do not understand what we proved in the beginning, that
nothing is more agreeable to nature than that where there
are different ends and divers powers, there should also be
different commands; and that the same numerical person
should both command and obey, namely in a different re-
spect. Thus we often see those who have been the greatest
and most honourable civil magistrates, when they go into
the army, obey those who were far their inferiors. The life
of physicians is for the most part private, and unacquainted
with all jurisdiction; yet emperors themselves observe the
orders of physicians. The same person therefore may be
both inferior and superior: on which Themistius of old
elegantly jested, when being from the profession of philo-
sophy, which by its own right commands kings, promoted
by the Emperor Constantius to a great post in the State,
in a most elegant epigram, he thus speaks to himself’, viv
dvaBnOe Kato, Kal yap avo KatéBns: “ Now ascend down-
wards, because you have descended upwards.” Like to which
was that of St. Chrysostom in his sixty-sixth Homily on
St. Matthew °, concerning the sublime humility of Christ the

4 [Seip avdBnO Kkérw* viv yop %vw by Theodosius. See Petavius, Vita ap.
KaréBns. @cuioriov cis Eavtdvi—Ap. Op. Themistii. ]
Anthol.Grec., tom. ii. p.404. Itis more e [S. Chrys. in S. Matt. Hom. Ixvi.
probable that Themistius was promoted Op., tom. vii. p. 649, D.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II.

SECT. II,

APPENDIX,
NO. VI.

Ps. 110. 4;
Heb. 5. 6;
(Pelee

126 The offices of king and priest anciently united ;

Lord of all: his words are these; ‘H xataBacts avr) Tav-
Tov avadBaots yéyove: “This very humiliation was the exalta-
tion of all men.” And many other like passages in the same
father.

III. The Christian Church and State acknowledges Christ
only as King and Priest.

The holy Scriptures own the priesthood of Christ alone
to be of the order of Melchisedec, that is, jomed with the
kingly office. Indeed in the beginning, when kingdoms
and dominions were instituted among men, the same per-
sons were both kings and priests; and that custom re-
mained among the Egyptians and other barbarous nations,
and even among the Grecians themselves for many ages;
as Plato! (in Politic. vi.), Aristotle (lib. iii. de Repub.), Cle-
mens Alexandrinus" (Strom. vii.), and several others assure
us. Cicero also in his first book of Divination’, affirms the
same of the ancient Romans. This custom was afterwards
changed, and instead of the first kings, who were also
priests, there were instituted at Athens*, Rome, and other
places, sacerdotal kings!, as it were only for the name, not
much unlike those represented on the stage; for they had
nothing of king except the name: Plato calls them «Anpo-
tovs™, “kings made by lots.” And there was formerly a like
observance among God’s own people; for to say nothing of
Melchisedec, so much taken notice of in both Testaments as
king and priest, it is manifest that the ancient patriarchs,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and indeed all the first-
born, as St. Jerome observes", were in some sort both kings
and priests among their own people. But Synesius in his
fifty-seventh Epistle says, it was God that changed that
custom; and he there gives us this reason for the change.
“ Because,” says he®, “ divine worship was administered after

f [Platonis Politicus, c. 30. Op., iii. ii. ¢. 2.]

290; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 276. m [Platon. Polit., ibid., p. 291. ]

notes l, n. | n [S. Hieron. Ep. 73. ad Evangelum
& [ Arist. Polit., lib. iii. c. 14.§ 18, § 6. Op., tom. i. col. 442, D; see

14.] above, vol. ii. p. 199, note h. |
h [S. Clem. Alex. Strom., lib. vii. © [elt émeidy mor Soke? Td Octoy Epyov
c. 7. Op., p. 305, 45. | avOpwrivws emparreto, digkitev 6 Beds
i [Cicero de Div., lib. i. c. 40.] Tovs Bious, kal 6 ev tepds, 6 O€ 7ryEMo-
k [See above, vol. ii. p. 276. vids amedelxOn.—Synesii Epist. lvii.

' Reges sacrificuli.| Liv. Hist., lib. Op., p.198, E; Paris. 1631. ]

have been separated since the time of Christ. 127

the manner of men, therefore God separated the office of cASAtTEO

the priest and the prince, which were before joimed together _xccr.
in the same person.” And the same most excellent writer grey. im.

says elegantly? ; dre wodeTiKhy apeTyv lepwotvn cvvaTrreLy,
Td KAdOeW ott TA aovyKrwoTa, “that to join the political
power with the priesthood, is to connect things into one,
which are utterly inconsistent in their own nature.” But
the reasons for which God would have that distinction pre-
served in His Church are accurately explained by Pope
Gelasius, whose words I think it necessary to write down.
“These things,” says hes, “might be before the coming of
Christ, that some persons in a figure, though as yet ap-
pointed for carnal employments, were at the same time
both kings and priests, as the sacred history acquaints us
holy Melchisedec was.” And a little after", “But when
once the true King and Priest was come, the emperor no
longer took to himself the name of high-priest, nor did the
high-priest claim the dignity of king. For although as
members of Him, that is, of the true King and Priest, ac-
cording to the participation of His nature, they may be said,
in the sacred generation, to have taken both offices, that the
regal and sacerdotal dignity might subsist together; yet
Christ being mindful of human frailty, that He might act
in conformity to the salvation of His people, by a glorious
dispensation thus separated the duties of each power, dis-

p [Id. ibid., paulo supra. ]

a9 [Fuerint hee ante adventum
Christi, ut quidam figuraliter, adhuc
tamen in carnalibus actionibus con-
stituti, pariter reges existerent et pa-
riter sacerdotes; quod sanctum Mel-
chisedech fuisse, sacra prodit historia.
—S. Gelasii Tomus de anathematis
vineulo. Concilia, tom. v. col. 357, E.
See above, vol. ii. p. 350, y, z. ]

t [Sed cum ad verum ventum est
eundem Regem atque Pontificem, ultra
sibi nee imperator pontificis nomen
imposuit, nec pontifex regale fasti-
gium vindicavit. Quamvis enim mem-
bra ipsius, id est, veri Regis atque
Pontificis, secundum participationem
nature magnifice utrumque in sacra
generatione sumsisse dicantur, ut simul
regale genus et sacerdotale subsistant ;
attamen Christus memor fragilitatis
humane, quo svorum saluti con-

erueret, dispensatione magnifica tem-
perans, sic actionibus propriis dignita-
tibusque distinctis, officia potestatis
utriusque discrevit, suos volens medi-
cinali humilitate salvari, non humana
superbia rursus intercipi: ut et Chris-
tiani imperatores pro eterna vita pon-
tificibus indigerent; et pontifices pro
temporalium cursu rerum imperiali-
bus dispositionibus uterentur, quatenus
spiritalis actio a carnalibus distaret in-
cursibus; et ideo militans Deo minime
se negotiis secularibus implicaret ; ac
vicissim non ille rebus divinis presi-
dere videretur, qui esset negotiis se-
cularibus implicatus; ut et modestia
utriusque ordinis curaretur; ne ex-
tolleretur utroque suffultus; et com-
petens qualitatibus actionum specialiter
professio aptaretur.—lId., ibid., 358, A,

B.]

APPENDIX,

NO. VI.

128 Reasons for separating the civil and ecclesiastical powers.

tinguishing them by their proper actions and dignities,
being desirous that His elect should be saved by a whole-
some humility, and not again destroyed by human pride:
and that Christian emperors should stand in need of priests
for the attainment of eternal life, and priests depend upon
the emperors in the administration of temporal things, that
the spiritual action might be free from carnal encroach-
ments, and therefore that no man who is God’s soldier
should entangle himself in the affairs of this life: and on
the other hand, that he who is entangled in secular affairs
should not preside over such as are divine: and that by the
balance of both orders it should be provided, that none
should have both to puff him up; and that a competent
profession should be peculiarly suited to the qualities of
both actions.” Thus Gelasius in his book de Anathematis
Vinculo, from whence Pope Nicholas‘ took it, and Gratian
from him‘. You will here observe two very important
causes, why no man can be king and priest in the Church
of God: the first is “the balance of both orders.” This
judicious author calls modestia what the Greek writers of
politics, when they treat of the nature of civil governments,
style icoppomia and fvyooratnaots", “an equilibrium;” for
they tell us that “a government cannot be firm and steady
when the parts which constitute it in a geometrical proportion
are not on all sides, by an equal weight, kept in their proper
and lawful stations ;” that otherwise it will necessarily come
to pass, as Gelasius here says, that the part which is buoyed
up with too much power will rise too high, and é&o«y, as
Polybius* most aptly expresses it, that is, “go out of its
place.” Another reason is, lest that should happen which
was just now mentioned from Synesius; but on the con-
trary, that sacred persons should take care of sacred things,
and persons not consecrated of things not sacred. The
archbishops of the provinces of Rheims and Rouen use this
expression to Lewis their king’; “ God coming in the flesh,

* [Nicolai Pape I. Epist. viii. ad x [Id. ibid. c. 18. efo.5e? is the true
Michael. Imp. ap. Concilia, tom. ix. reading, as in Casaubon’s own edition,

col. 1344, A, B, Cj p- 465, D. Paris, 1609. ]
[Gratiani Decretum, pars i. dist. x. y [Deus in carne veniens, qui solus
ce. 8. ap. Corpus Juris Canonici. ] Rex fieri potuit et sacerdos, et in

« [Polyb. Hist., lib. vi. c. 10.] celum ascendens, suum Regnum, id

The power of civil governors is directly from God. 129

who alone could become King and Priest, and ascending into
heaven, disposed of the government of His kingdom, that is,
the Church, between the pontifical authority and the regal
power.”

IV. The prince and the priest, or the bishop, receive their
power from Christ, both King and Priest ; the one the civil,
the other the sacerdotal power, but in different respects.

Christ, God and man, is the author of both powers; nor
does either the sacerdotal in things divine depend on the
king, or the regal in things human on the bishop. The
latter of which many falsely assert now, and endeavour to
prove; for indeed Christian kings and princes have most of
them among their very titles of honour long since begun to
profess that they are what they are by the “ grace of God2.”’
And the Emperor Justinian says right, (in the sixth Novel®,)
that “the priesthood and kingly office flow from the same
fountain,” namely, Christ, who, as He said in St. Peter to all
bishops universally, “ Feed My sheep;” so speaking to the
Pharisees, He gave this command to all people in general,
of what order soever, “‘ Render to Cesar the things that are
Cesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And the
same Christ by His Apostle Paul proclaims, “ Let every soul
be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but
of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”? Where
that he speaks of the secular powers, not of the ecclesiasti-
cal, is so manifest from what follows, that it is senseless to
doubt of it, and mere sophistry to interpret it otherwise.
Therefore Gregory of Nazianzum?, in a sermon delivered at
that city, said, that the civil magistrate did Xpuctd cuvap-
yew, Xprot@ ovvdcocxeiv, “share the empire with Christ in
a joint administration.” And Symmachus, bishop of Rome,

est, ecclesiam inter pontificalem auc- dy@pwmrivey etdpxovod Te kal émijedov-

toritatem et regiain potestatem guber- evn, kal ex mids Te Kal Tijs abTijs apxis

nandam disposuit—Epist. Episcopo- éxatépa mpoiotca, kal toy avOpdmuvov

rum, &c. ad Ludovicum, ap. Baronii «katakocpotaa Biov.—Justin. Novell.

Annales, ann. 858, num. 51. | Const. vi. Auth. Collat. 1. tit. vi.
? Dei Gratia. Prefatio, ap. Corp. Jur. Civ. See above,
® (wéyiora tav ev avOpdrois éor) vol. ii. p. 292, s. |

bapa Oeov, mapa THs tvwhey dedoueva. » [Xpirg@ ocuvapxets, Xpior@ ad

piravOpwrias, iepwotyn TE Kal BactrAela’ ouvd.01Kets.—S. Greg. Naz., Orat. xvii.
7] wev Tots Oelois bwnpeToumern, 7 be Tav § 9. Op., tom. i. p. 323,-B. ]
HICKES, S

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. II.

SECT. III.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

[ kvBepyh-
oeis, 1 Cor.
12, 28.]

130 In what sense civil power is immediately from God.

writing to the Emperor Anastasius, “Do you,” says he®,
“pay a deference to God in us, and we will pay a deference
to God in you.” Nor does it alter the case, that some
princes obtain their dominion by hereditary right, others by
election, and some by conquest: for though God uses certain
men as His instruments to establish a prince or constitute a
priest, yet it were an impiety not to acknowledge all domi-
nion and power whatsoever to come originally from God.
For “by Him kings reign,” as a thousand passages of Scrip-
ture assure us. This princes mean when they affirm that
they have received their power immediately from God. The
Emperor Lewis of Bavaria says‘, “ Testimonies of both civil
and canon law manifestly declare that the imperial dignity
and authority came of old immediately from the Son of
God, and that God, by the emperors and kings of the world,
did openly give laws to mankind.” And afterwards®; “We
declare that the imperial power and dignity is immediately
from God only.” And this very justly: for if “neither he
that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth, but God
that giveth the increase :’ if neither Paul himself is any
thing, nor Apollos, but God who giveth the increase of faith,
shall we dare to say that they are any thing who elect a
prince on earth, or set a crown on his head? Or shall we
deny that the emperors of Constantinople, who received
their crown from the patriarch, did justly and properly call
themselves Jeooredets, “ crowned of God?” But this is com-
mon to the regal and sacerdotal office, that both are called
apyxai, or “ principalities.” St. Paul in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, among ecclesiastical offices also reckons govern-
ments, taking the word either from such as sit at the helm
in ships, or from political magistrates. St. John Chrysos-
tom, both in his books de Sacerdotio, and frequently else-
where, tells us that there is in the office of a bishop an épyor'’,
“awork,” that is, the duty of teaching, of administering Sacra-

mano generi aperte tribuisse.—Decre-
tum Imp., &c. ap. Annales H. Reb-

vi. ap. Concilia, tom. v. col. 428, C;
quoted above, vol. ii. p. 353, g.]

4 [Juris utriusque testimonia mani-~
feste declarant, imperialem dignitatem
et potestatem immediate a Filio Dei
ab antiquo processisse, et Deum per
imperatores et. rezes mundi jura hu-

dorff; inter Script. Rerum Germ. Fre-
her; tom. i. p. 616; ed. Argent. 1717. ]
© [Declaramus, quod imperialis dig-
nitas et potestas est immediate a solo
Deo.—Ibid. ]
f [See above, pp. 51, e; 11], c.]

The Fathers exalt the spiritual above the temporal power. 131

ments, and in one word, of feeding the flock. And more
than this, dpyjv, Tyov, and avGevteiar, “a certain princi-
pality, honour, and authority’.’’? Gregory Nazianzen also
calls his episcopal charge” duvacreiar, a “ dominion,” and at-
tributes “a tribunal” to himself. Nor this only, but compar-
ing his power with the civil, he says, his “is as much greater
and more excellent as the spirit is superior to the flesh, and
heavenly things to such as are earthly.” And the holy fathers
have frequently scattered up and down in their writings other
expressions of like nature, to gain veneration to the priest-
hood. And there are those who compare the priesthood to
the sun, which is the greater light, and the empire to the
moon, which is the lesser: which similitude is also used
by Innocent ITI.‘ in the very words of the ancient fathers,
though with a different meanmg. And indeed who that
estimates things aright can doubt but that heavenly things
excel earthly, and the spirit the flesh, or even the mind?
Or who does not know that a priest duly administering
divine offices is on account of his function far superior to
all earthly empires? Which was perfectly well understood
by those emperors of old, who first introduced that custom,
that (as themselves declare in a certain law") they should
approach Christ’s altar without their crown, without their
guards, and without the other ensigns of majesty; signify-
ing thereby that themselves are only sheep within Christ’s
fold, and that within the pale of the Church only Christ and
such as represent Him have properly any right or power.
But they who now abuse such like testimonies of the ancient
fathers, in order to change their spiritual power, confined to
the administration of spiritual things, into a dominion that
comprehends things temporal as well as spiritual, do wonder-
fully impose upon the ignorant: for that those venerable
writers had another meaning, and that they did not so much
as dream of that exemption of the clergy, or this liberty of

& [S. Chrys. de Sacerd., lib. iii. § 11. instituit dignitates, que sunt pontifi-
Op., tom. i. p. 388, B; see ibid. | calis auctoritas et regalis potestas,—
» (S. Greg. Naz., Orat. xvii. § 8. Epist. Inn. III. tomri. p. 550. ed. Ba-
Op., tom. i. p. 323, A; quoted above, luz. Paris. 1682. |
vol. ii. p. 311, note i.] k [Nos ... Dei templum ingressuri
[Ad firmamentum igitur cceli, hoc... ipsum etiam diadeima, regize majes-
est, universalis ecclesia, fecit Deus duo _ tatis insigne deponimus.—Cod. Theod.,
luminaria magna, id est, duas magnas lib. ix. tit. 45. 1. 4.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.

CHAP. II,

SECT. IV.

132 Expressions of the Fathers to be taken in a qualified sense.

ro the Church, it is ignorance not to know, impudence to deny,
———— impiety, and that the greatest, to maintain the contrary.
They urge that similitude above mentioned from Gregory
Nazianzen!, and the chief of them draw a monstrous con-
clusion from it; not seeing, or pretending not to see, that it
was the custom of those most eloquent authors to make fre-
quent use of that force of oratory which the Greek rhetori-
cians call Sevvdrns, “ vehemence :” and that therefore they
express many things after the manner of orators, loftily,
magnificently, and with great vehemence, which stand in
need of a convenient interpretation. For to endeavour to
wrest all the sayings of the fathers, as they do especially
upon this subject, and not attend to the scope of them, is
to imitate the wickedness of heretics, who made use of this
method to vindicate their impious inventions. So the
wretched Arius of old defended his wicked word roinya, or
“creature,” used of the true Son of God, out of an orthodox
father, Dionysius Alexandrinus’s™ writings against Sabel-
lius. Wherefore Pope Honorius®, in his Epistle to Sergius
of Constantinople, did piously and learnedly observe, “ that
some of the fathers condescending to inform the minds and
understandings of little ones, have (as it were lisping) taught
some things which ought not to be drawn into ecclesiastical
doctrines.” In such instances he will not err who shall
keep in memory that golden rule of St. Atharasius®; Ov de?
Ta KAT OlKovomiay ypapopeva Kal yevoweva TaDTAa KaKoOTpO-
mos Oéxec0ar: “things written or done by way of dispensa-
tion ought not to be maliciously interpreted.” A golden
rule, as I said, and of very extensive use. For that is most
certainly the case. Pious men of old, both fathers and
princes, did not only say or write, but do many things
orderly, piously, and holily for the times, which were taken
maliciously and insidiously by those that came after, as

1 [ Ut Christiani oves sunt Pastoribus
episcopis subjecti, ut Nazianzenus do-
cet, &e. (S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xvii.;
quoted below, p. 134, note t.)—Bellar-
minus de Romano Pont., lib. i. e. 7.
p. 259, B.]

™ [See S. Athanas. Epist. de Senten-
tia Dionysii, § 4. Op., tom.i. p. 246, A.]

0 [Kav ef tives PedAlCovtes, iva olTws
elnaev, ewmexelpnoay mpopépovtes exOe-

o0at TuTODYTES aUTOUS ev TXHmaTL BidaA0 -
KdAwy Orws SvynO@ot Tas Stavolas Tu-
THOU TOY AkpoaTay ov xp} TAaVTAa mpds
ddymata exkAnoidoTiKa peTacTpEepew.
—Apud Concilii Constant. III. act.
xii. Concilia, tom. vii. col. 964, D.]

St. Greg. Naz. misapplied by Bellarmine and others. 133

St. Athanasius says; and which now, the wholesome and
necessary admonition of Pope Honorius being neglected, are
drawn to ecclesiastical doctrines, and insinuated into the
minds of men for articles of faith. They manifestly do this
who bring the above-mentioned passage of Gregory Nazian-
zenP to confirm the exemption of the clergy, as Cardinal Bel-
larmine? and many others do. In that sermon the holy
man proposed two things to himself; first, to give some
consolation to the magistrates, and all that had the admi-
nistration of public affairs at Nazianzum, and deliver them
from a very great fear they were then under, by reason of
an offence committed against the president of the province ;
his other end was, to mitigate the president’s anger, and
incline his mind to grant them his pardon. Now it is
natural, that when any thing of this kind is requested,
chief regard should be had to the condition of the peti-
tioner; for the petition is generally esteemed according to
the dignity of him that makes it, rather than to the merits
of the cause. This is the true reason why this man of
divine humility, in the beginning of his request, does so
magnificently extol the majesty of that character of priest-
hood which he sustained; not to set himself above kings,
but to make himself useful to his people then lying under
great disgrace. Thus St. Paul, the elect vessel, im whom
all virtue and divine grace dwelt, that he might procure
honour to his gospel, did not decline boasting of his own
excellence. And I beseech you what is there in Gregory’s
words which in the least favours this modern doctrine ?
For to compare the priesthood to the spirit, and the civil
power to the flesh, that is, to the natural man, as the Apo-
stle speaks, what is it else but to say what all men readily
confess, that bishops preside in spiritual, princes in tempo-
ral affairs? But they who from hence argue the exemp-
tion of the clergy, and subjection of princes in secular
matters, with what face can they read the words almost
immediately preceding, in which the same apostolic writer,
suitably to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles, twice
expressly inculcates the duty of obeying magistrates? Nei-

P [See above, p. 131, h. ]
4 [ Bellarminus De Clericis, lib. i. c. 29, tom, ii. p. 164, B. |

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, IL.

SECT. IV.

134 St. Greg. Naz. inculcates submission to earthly princes.

arrenpix. ther does St. Gregory put the laity in the condition of sub-
st jects, and exempt himself and the rest of the priesthood
from that number; but including himself also among the
laity’, “Let us be subject,” says he, “both to God arid to
one another, and to our earthly princes: to God, for all
things; to one another, for brotherly love; to princes, for
the preservation of due order.” Afterwards going to repeat
this very precept in the Apostle’s own words, he says by
way of preface, that this is one of those laws imposed upon
us Christians, and that it is very good and commendable,
and proceeds from the Spirit of God. I omit that the same
holy father, so great a bishop, reckons himself among those
who are obliged to pay tribute to the prince: that he says
in the same place, that magistrates who rightly administer
their authority become gods; éfecti cot Gacy yevécOar:
“Tt is in your power,” says he’, “to become a god.” A
passage which might put a stop to these men’s boasting
so much of a like expression of Constantine’s concerning
bishops, especially since bishops are no where in the holy
Scriptures called gods, and yet lay powers (as every one
knows) are found so styled. I might also add, that address-
ing himself to the president, the holy father says thust: “TI
know thee to be a sheep of my flock and of that great Shep-
herd, and to have been excellently instructed from above by
the Spirit, and enlightened as well as we by the holy and
blessed Trinity.” Which expression of this mcst judicious
father is very different from the haughtiness of those zealots
who exclude princes and all the laity from what is sacred, as
if they were profane persons, no way appertaining to God’s
care, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

Now let the readers who are desirous not to dispute but
to know the truth, judge with what fidelity the writings of
the fathers are dealt with by those men, who put their wits
upon the rack to prove the exemption of the clergy from
this similitude of St. Gregory’s. With like subtlety they

r [bmorarodmeba. Kal @cd, Kal GAAT- ‘ [oid, dr: mpd8atov ef tis euijs
Aots, Kal Tots em yhs upxovow ©cG Sia + moluvns, ris icpas iepdy, ral Opéuua Tod
mayra, dia Thy piradergpiay G@AAHAOS, pmeyddou momévos, Kal Kad@s &vwOev
be edratlay tots &pxovow.—sS. Greg. HY EVOY ord Tov TVEULOTOS, kal T@

Naz., Orat. xvii. § 6. Op., tom. i. p. perl THs _aylas Kot pakaplas Tpiados

321, C.] : onus ity €\Aawrépuevov.—Id. ibid.,
S (Id. ibid., § 9. p. 323, D.] § 8, J

St. Chrysostom wrongly alleged by Bellarmine. 135

also allege some passages of St. Chrysostom’, in which that
sublime orator either extols the priesthood up to the skies,
or treats some other like argument with his usual eloquence.
I suppose they conceal what that father in many places re-
peats, that the rule or government of bishops, to such as
rightly consider it, is not so much a principality as a minis-
try of teaching; that it has no manner of coercive jurisdic-
tion whatever, but only a right to admonish and exhort.
“We are instituted,” says hex, “to teach the word, ov« ets
apxnv ovd eis avOevtiav, neither to govern, nor usurp au-
thority,” in his comments upon the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians ; and in his second homily on the Epistle to Titus he
compares the bishop and 6 é€w@ev dpywr, the secular prince
and magistrate, together; the latter, he saysy, “does vouw
Kpareivy Kal avayxn, govern by law, with a penal necessity
of being obeyed: the former does éxdvtTwyv apyxewv, rule such
as are willing to be governed,” that is, has no right to force.
And in his [second'] book De Sacerdotio, explaining the
same opinion in more words, he says’, “ Secular judges (ot
é&w0ev) exert the force of their authority when they oblige
malefactors to submit to their laws, and force them against
their wills to obey their constitutions. But a bishop is ob-
liged to reclaim the offender to a better life, not by force of
arms, but by persuasion of words: for neither have we such
a power granted us by the laws as to enable us to coerce
sinners, nor if it were granted us should we know how to
use it.” And with like fidelity the sayings of some later
popes are amassed together, in which they seem to claim to
themselves an infinite power over the lives of kings and
princes, while at the same time that divine humility of

u [Bellarminus (de Summo Ponti-
fice, lib. i. c. 7) alleges S. Chrysost.,
lib. iii. de Sacerdotio, Hom. 4. in cap. 6.
Esaiz, and Hom. 83. in S. Matt., which
are quoted in the Treatise on the Dignity
of the Episcopal order: see above, vol.
ii. pp. 313, 321, 323.]

x [eis didacKaArlay Adyou mpoexetpia-
Onuev, ovK Eis apXIV, OVE eis abOevTiav.
—S. Chrys. in Ephes. Hom. xi. § 5.
Op., tom. xi. p. 87, E.]

Y [6 pev yap etwey apxwy, ered)
vou Kparel Kal avaryKy, K.T.A. 6 wevToL
Exdytwy opelrhoy Upxew, k.T.A.—Id, in

Ep.ad Tit. Hom. ii. § 2.ibid., p. 738, F.]

% [oi wey &wOev dikacral rovs Kaxovp-
yous, Stay bd Tois vépors Ad Bwot, TOA-
Ahv émidelxvovta: thy ekovciav, Kal
&covras Tois Tpdras KwAvovar xphaGat
rots a’tav. evradba 5 ov Biatduevor,
GAAG melOovta Set moeiy Gmeivw Toy
ToLovTov. ode yap huw ekovola ToravTn
Tapa Tav vouwy dedoTa Tpds TH KWAVEW
TOUS GmaptdvoyTas* ovTE, ci Kal COwKay,
elxoumev dmov xpnoducda TH Suvdwer.—
S. Chrys. de Sacerdot., lib. ii. c. 3. Op.,
tom. i. p. 874, B.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.

CHAP. II.

SECT, IV.

sD (igen tz
d, 3.]

‘4

136 = Spiritual censures are the sword of the Church.

appenvix, former popes is concealed, which gained them as far more

NO. VI.

sublime a degree of glory as they were more averse to the
vain arrogance of the world. Out of many I will produce
one example, that of Pelagius, bishop of Rome, into which
see he was enthroned about the year 555. For he sending
the profession of his faith to Childebert king of France,
says*, “How much study and labour ought we to employ
(in order to remove the scandal of suspicion) to give an
account of our faith to kings, to whom the holy Scriptures
command us also to be subject.”

But to return to my argument. What was said just now
out of St. Chrysostom, that the sacerdotal government has
no coercive power, is to be understood of temporal punish-
ment: for otherwise that can be no discipline, which can
propose no reward or punishment: that is the only sinew
of discipline and good order. But there are two causes
why St. Chrysostom speaks thus: for since the ancient
Church knew no other punishment besides the censures of
the college of bishops, and the bond of excommunication,
which is the sword of the spirit, it was the opinion of this
great father”, that that dire weapon was either very seldom,
or not at all to be used against the faithful; of which by
God’s assistance, I shall say more elsewhere. The other
reason was, that this spiritual sword of the bishops, unless
it be supported by the material one of the civil magistrate,
is wont to be despised by the wicked even among the clergy,
much more among the laity. See the second law in the
Theodosian Code‘, De Episcopali Judicio; for because the
sacerdotal punishment is not to have its effect till the next
life, you will find more persons who will be allured by
pleasure set before their eyes, than whom the fear of a
future remote punishment will restrain within their duty :

® [Quanto nobis studio ac labore
satagendum est, ut pro auferendo sus-
picionis scandalo obsequium confes-
sionis nostra regibus ministremus ?
Quibus nos etiam subditos esse, Sanctz
Scripture precipiunt.—Pelagii Pap
I. ad Childebertum Epist. ap Concilia,
tom. vi. col. 479, D, et ap. Baronii An-
nales, ann. 559. nun. 13.]

> [See S. Chrys. de Sacerd., lib. ii.
c. 4, Op., tom. i. pp. 374, sqq. ]

¢ [Suggerentibus episcopis didici-
mus quosdam sacerdotes Christiane
legis, quorum delicta ctu episcopo-
rum deprehensa fuerint ... permanere,
et quzrere turbas populi, &c.—Extra-
vagans seu subditius Titulus de Epi-
scopali Judicio (al. Cod. Theod., lib.
xvi. Tit. 12. c. 2.) Impp. Arcad. et
Theod. A.D. 405. Cod. Theod. cum
Comment. Gothofred, tom. vi. p. 308.
Lugd. 1665. ]

That and the civil sword mutually aid each other. 137

therefore though this sword be as much more formidable
than that of the magistrate, as the death of the soul is more
terrible than that of the body; yet such are the dispositions
of men, that the latter is of more avail than the former
towards the preservation of ecclesiastical discipline: and this
is what divines are used to call the insufficiency and im-
perfection of the sword of the spirit. Decreti, quest. v.
ce. xx.; “There would not be? the necessary powers within
the Church, if what the priest is not able to effect by the
word of doctrine, authorities should not fulfil by the terror
of discipline.” Richardus Cantuariensis, in his Epistle, put
by Petrus Blesensis among his, says*, “ Let the Church first
exercise her jurisdiction: and if that be not sufficient, let
the secular sword supply its defect.” The same author ob-
serves the like insufficiency also in the material sword, and
that therefore it is necessary that they conspire friendly
together, and mutually help each other. His words are
thesef: “There are two swords, which want each other’s
assistance, and mutually impart their strength to each other ;
that of the priesthood to kings, and that of the king to
priests: therefore if one supplies the other’s insufficiency,
it does not seem a double suffering, or a twofold punish-
ment.” But St. Bernard said very well, that the material
sword “is moved at the emperor’s command, and at the
signification of the bishop®;” that is, the bishop pointing
out, and as it were accusing and consenting; for that is
understood by nutus: not what they mean, who frame us
princes as certain executioners or public servants of the
Roman pontiff, when it is undoubted that the prince draws
his sword as the minister of Almighty God, the vicar on
earth of Christ our king, not at another’s discretion, but by

4 [Intra ecclesiam potestates neces- Paris. 1667. ]
sari non essent, nisi, ut quod non f [Duo sunt gladii, qui mutuam a
prevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrine se mendicant auxilium, atque ad in-
sermonem, potestas hoc impleat per vicem sibi vires impertiuntur alternas;
discipline terrorem.—Decreti, pars ii. sacerdotium regibus, et sacerdotibus
Causa xxiii. Quest. 5. c. 20. ap. Corp. regnum. Ideoque si ab altero sup-
Jur. Can., tom. i. | pletur alterius insufficientia, non vide-

€ [Ecclesia jurisdictionem suam _ tur duplex contritio, aut punitio com-
prius exerceat; et si illa non sufficit, binata.—Id. ibid. ]
ejus imperfectum suppleat gladius se- & [Ad nutum sacerdotis et jussum
cularis.—Richardi Archiep. Cantuar. imperatoris.—S. Bernard. de Conside-
ad tres Episcopos Angliz ; Epist. lxxiii. ratione, lib. iy. c. 3. Op., tom. i. col.
ap. Petri Blesensis Op., p. 110. ed. 444, B.]

HICKES, At

CASAUBON

DE LIB.
ECCL.

CHAP, II.

SECT, IV.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

-which regard the conveniences of the body.”

138 The powers of priests and of princes in spiritual things.

the force and lawful power of his own government; to whom
priests, bishops, and all sorts of ecclesiastical persons what-
soever, are as much obliged to submit their necks, as he is
his to them in the Church, as Gelasius® said: for divinity
considers three things in man, the body, the soul, and the
spirit. Of these three that which is the noblest of all, the
spirit, by which we receive the heavenly doctrine, which
neither flesh nor blood have revealed, belongs to the govern-
ment and power of the priest. He informs the spirit with
the knowledge of God; he opens the way of heaven; he
delivers the. contumacious over to death by the force of his
spiritual sword: for to be separated from the communion of
Christ and of the Christian Church is the most dreadful
death. And can this power seem little to any one? or can
he be justly said to be contumelious against the sacerdotal
order, who believes it to be the judge of eternal life or
damnation, if, as divines speak, the key do not err? But the
body and the soul are altogether in the prince’s power ; the
body by reason of things corporeal, and (as they call them)
temporal, necessary to it; and because the prince may by
his own right, for a crime and for the public benefit, take
away the life from the body of any of his subjects whatsoever :
the soul, because the prince informs it with civil laws, and
instructs it for a civil life. Therefore the sacerdotal power is
the more noble; but that of the prince is more extensive in
the government of a Christian state. Theodorus Balsamon,
a most judicious canonist, says in one of his meditations:
“The assistance of emperors offers itself for the illumination
and establishment as well of the soul as of the body: where-
as the majesty of patriarchs is restrained to the advantage
of the soul only ; for they have little care of those things
Balsamon
here teaches us the very same thing that was just now said,
but more obscurely ; for that threefold distinction mentioned
above does wonderfully illustrate the matter: and the holy

" [S. Gelasii Epist. viii, ad Anasta- wuxichy eorevoxdpnra Avorrérciay,

sium Imp. ap. Concilia, tom. y. col.
308, D ; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 349. ]

1 [ére 8 Tay ev abtoKpardpev 7
apwyh mpls dwticpdy Kal ovoracw
érekteiverat WuxAs Te kal odparos, Td
dé weyadeiov TY marTpiapxay eis udyny

oAlyn yap TovTas eat) ppovtis evTa-
Gelas cwuarikys.—Theodori Balsamonis
Meditatio, de Patriarcharum Privilegiis,
ap. Jur. Greco-Roman. Leunclayii,
tom, i, p. 449. ]

Constantine’s view of his authority in ecclesiastical affairs. 139

Scripture makes the same distinction between the soul and
the spirit. But under the appellation of yuy7*, or “soul,”
the spirit also is often comprehended. So you will fre-

quently read, that the priest is the governor of souls, to”

wit, with respect to things spiritual; for as to political
matters the prince is the governor of souls. On which
account that saying of Constantine the Great is commended,
who in his discourses at a table, where there were many
bishops sitting, and among them Eusebius Pamphili': dyes,
says he, wev Tav elow Tis exxrAnolas’ éy@ Sé THY ExTOS UTTO
Qcov xabeatauévos éricxotos av einv, “ You indeed are
bishops of those things which are done within the Church:
but I may be said to be appointed of God a bishop or
overseer of those things which are done without.” Or thus,
because the article trav is here ambiguous: “ You indeed are
bishops of those who are within the Church, I of those who
are without.” The Greeks call those things which do not
belong to the Church or to the ecclesiastical court, ta éxTos,
“things without ;”’? and on the contrary, spiritual things, ta
elow, “things within ;” and clergymen, of eicw, “ persons
within.” So we observed above, that secular judges are
called by St. Chrysostom, of é€w0ev dixacral, “such as
judge without ;” but not profane persons or pagans, as some
have thought. So “ within the Church,” in the canon law,
signifies “in ecclesiastical matters,’ (causa xx. quest. 5™.)
“Secular princes sometimes hold the supreme power within
the Church, that thereby they may defend ecclesiastical dis-
cipline.” And in what sense Constantine acted the bishop
Eusebius thus explains": “ Meditating in his mind things
suitable to the discourse he had made, évecxo7res, he per-
formed the duty of a bishop towards all his subjects, and to
the utmost of his power exhorted them to undertake a godly
life.’ As Constantine called himself a bishop, so other
emperors have styled themselves priests, by a much harsher
and more dangerous expression: Leo Isaurus wrote thus

k Animus vel anima.

1 [Eusebius de Vita Constantini,
lib. iv. c. 24, Eccl. Hist., tom. i. p. 638. ]

m [Principes seculi nonnunquam
intra ecclesiam potestatis adepte cul-
mina tenent, ut per eandem potestatem
disciplinam ecclesiasticam muniant.—

Decreti, pars ii, c, 20. ap. Corp. Jur.
Can. Causa xxiii. Quest. 5. c. 20.]

" [axddrovdia 8 oty TH Adyw Siavoov-
fevos, TOUS a&pxomevous mavtas éreo-
Kémet, mpottpené Te bon wep bv 7 BU-
vopus Tov evoeBH jeTadimHKe Blovy.—
Euseb, Vit. Const. ibid. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II,
SECT. Iv.

140 The prince has authority indirectly in ecclesiastical affairs.

arrenvix, to Gregory the Second, éy@ Bacireds Kal epevds eius, “I am

NO. VI.
-——_

an emperor and a priest,” and yet is not reproved by the
pope so much for writing in that manner, as for not making
good that title in his works. It may be worth while to set
down Gregory’s words®: “In compliance with your own
stubborn mind, and your domestic disturbances, you have
written, ‘I am an emperor and a priest : and indeed your
predecessors demonstrated this, both in their works and
their discourse, who built churches, and took care of them
together with the bishops, inflamed with a zealous desire,
and following the truth of the right faith.” And a little
after? : “These are priests and emperors, who shewed that by
their works.” So far was it beyond all controversy among
the ancients, that princes were not only defenders of the
Church, which was of old the peculiar title of the kings of
France, but also keepers and assertors of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline: not to make any innovations upon the doctrines
of faith; God forbid! but as often as it was necessary to
admonish the whole clergy of their duty. For which reason
Ludovicus Pius‘ calls himself “admenisher of the eccle-
siastical laws, not legislator.” Which the great Emperor
Justinian signified in other words, when he said, (Novell.
187",) “that God had given him as it were the é£ovcia of
the civil laws,” the power of making and repealing them,
according as the common benefit of the republic and dif-
ferent times required; but “the wapadvAaxy, the custody
and defence of the canons and ecclesiastical laws.” And in
the Greek authors of the canon law, the emperor is said in
affairs of the Church, ov« avQevtetv, dAXNa KavoviKds dieEd-
yeo@at, “not to determine by his imperial authority, but to
transact all things by the direction of the canons.” And

° [eénxorov0noas TH mMelopwat. Kat
Tots évoikois cou mdbeor Kat eypapas
bri BactAreds kal iepeds cit. Kat TodTO
e eS tes Bh y
of mpd cov Bactrcis eertav Epyw Kal
Ady@, of KTicduevol, Kal ppoyTicayTes
TaY eKKAnol@y, Gua Tols apxiepedow
exfnthoavres 760m Kal Shaw THs dp0o-

f \ > / _
dokias Thy GAnOctav.—Leonis Imp.
Epist. ad Greg. Papam II. ap. Con-
cilia, tom. viii. col. 669, A.j

P [obra eioww tepets kal Bactdets ofti-
ves kal TO Epyw éredelEavto.—Ibid. B. |

9 [Unde apparet quod ego omnium

vestrum admonitor esse debeo.— Ludo-
vici Pii Imp. Capit. II. ap. Concilia,
tom. ix. col. 628, B.]}

¥ [ei tobs roAitixovs vduous, GY THY
efouciay juiv 6 Beds Kata Thy éavTod
piravOpwriay eémiatevoe, BeBaiovs dia
mavtwy puddtrecbat mpos aopddcav
TY ITNKOwY GTOVdAComEY, TOTW MGAAOV
TAclova omavdny dpelAouey BecOa epi
Thy Tov tepav Kavdvwy Kal Belwy vouwy
TapapuAakyy, K.T.A.—Auth. Coll. ix.
Tit. xix. Nov, 137. Pref. ap. Corp.
Jur. Civ. ]

Instances from the Jewish kings. 141

that this inspection into things sacred belongs to princes
by divine right, appears from the institution of kings by
God, in the 17th of Deuteronomy; and from the examples

of the kings of Judah: 2 Kings xii. King Joash, when he

saw that the sacred treasure was not rightly administered
by the priests, took that care upon himself, and composed
the matter by his royal authority: and that without the
complaint of any one, not so much as of Jehoiada the high-
priest, who had anointed him king. Jehoshaphat is com-
mended as a religious king, 1 Kings xxii., but is there noted
for not having fully done the work of God’: for he had
not pulled down the altars; and how could he have done
that, unless the authority of doing it were in the king? The
same thing is said of several others: but Hezekiah alone has
the praise of restoring religion, 2 Kings xviii. Ecclesiastical
history is full of like examples of Christian kings, who in
France, Spain, England, and elsewhere, have of their own
accord, and by their royal authority, revived the decayed
institutions of ancient piety. Of whom I shall speak in
another place.

Here therefore we must observe the difference between the
civil and the sacerdotal power : for the civil has not only a di-
rect authority in temporal, but an indirect one in ecclesiastical
affairs: whereas divine matters are so committed to ecclesi-
astics, as that they are forbid to concern themselves in those
that are secular. They may indeed out of charity act in these
too, but not by any sacerdotal power or authority. They
who think otherwise, and allege that place of St. Paul, in the
first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. vi., and others such hke,
are refuted in the eighth chapter. We know there are exam-
ples, of the ancient priests of the Jewish people, who did not
only meddle in the state, but acted the greatest things in it.
But that was done either by God’s express command, as when

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. II.
SECT. IV.

Elisha anointed Jehu king, or by a certain extraordinary 2 Kings 9.

right ; of which sort are those duties, which the Greek philo-
sophers call cata repioracwy, “in extremity :” for they teach,
that besides the proper duty of every citizen according to the
place and station he enjoys in the city, sometimes with re-

8 [Bellarmine maintained, (De Ro- (c. 5), Papam habere summam tempo-
mano Pontifice, lib. v. c. 4,) Papam ralem potestatem indirecte.—Op., tom.
non habere ullam mere temporalem i. pp. 435, 439, sqq. ]
jurisdictionem directe jure divino; but

142 _ The civil power is supreme in a Christian state.

arpepix. spect to the state there happen such times, that it is lawful
“©. for every one to consult the public safety, if he can contribute
any thing thereto, even by going out of the ordimary course.

These they call duties xara wepioracu, in the extremity, or
according to the circumstance or exigence of the state, such

as depend as it were on the necessity of the case or times of

the republic. Thus though it is not lawful for any private
person to kill any one, yet when the republic is oppressed, if

any one slay the usurper', he has a reward decreed to him,

as to one that has deserved well of the commonwealth. These

duties can be prescribed by no other certain law than the
regard which is to be had to the public utility ; for the sake

of which the Greek sages tell us, that we ought yaddaoau Te

Ths axptBetas, “to abate something of what is rigidly just.”

And for a rule in such cases, they allege that verse of the

poet which defines that to be the best augury by which the

safety of his country shall be procured. On which occasion

I cannot but add the precept of St. John Chrysostom in his
twenty-fifth Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians".

TovtTo Kavav ypiotiavicpod [Tod TENELoTaTOV|, TODTO Gpos

NKpLBwpévos, AUTH 1) Kopud) 7 GvwTaTw TO Ta KOWW TUp-
pépovta Eyretv: “This is the rule of Christianity, this its
perfect definition, this the highest point of it above all, to
consult the public utility.”

V. The supreme power in a well-ordered State is the civil
not the sacerdotal power.

I lay it down for a thing certain and granted, which in
politics is easily demonstrated, and of which no wise man
doubts, that it is not possible for the safety of a State to be
provided for by any other means, than by its having only one
sovereignty in it, whether that be sustained by one person,
as in a monarchical State, or by many, as in an aristocracy
or a democracy: for in those also there is but one supreme
power. ‘This being laid down and granted, there does not
seem so much as the least doubt, but that the supreme autho-
rity in a Christian State does of right belong to him or them
in whom is that sovereignty. Indeed the Church and the
State are two systems of bodies, each of which in things pro-

t Tyrannum. Hom. 25. Op., tom. x. p. 228,- A,
u ([S. Chrys, in Ep. i. ad Cor. B.]

The clergy were not designed to possess temporal power, 143

perly pertaining to it have received a plenary power from
Christ, but with this difference, that the Church should be
subject to kings in this world, and expect its own kingdom
hereafter in heaven, and then reign, and not till then, with
its own head. That the State should hold its kingdom on the
earth, but that a temporal kingdom begun in this world, and
to end here. Besides, the sacerdotal power was not instituted
by God to bear civil rule; but for the ministry of the word,
and of things divine, as I have already shewn. St. Bernard
says to Eugenius*, lib. 1.: “ Dominion is forbidden to the
Apostles, and therefore to thee. Darest thou usurp either
the Apostleship, being a prince, or the principality, being an
Apostle? the apostolic form is this: dominion is forbid, mi-
nistration is introduced.” If this be true in the Apostles,
(and it is most true,) how much more in presbyters, bishops,
and popes, whom I suppose no modest man will assert to be
equal in dignity with the Apostles? add to this, that the
State extends further than the Church : why therefore should
the lesser part rule over the greater? especially seeing the
methods of governing the Church are very different from
those of ruling the State. If a ploughman in high shoes,
unskilful of sea affairs, desires the government of a ship,
Melicerta the sea-god cries out, There is no modesty left in
the world. And will you, whose province it is to manage
and take care of things sacred and divine, and to renounce
the cares of the world, contend that you have right to govern
the State? and seeing that civil prudence, which is the soul
of the State, is joined with the administration of wars, the
effusion of human blood, and many other things altogether
contrary to the holiness of the priesthood, will you challenge
to yourself alone these two things, that are so inconsistent
in their own nature? certainly the State existed before the
Church was admitted into it, and emperors and kings enjoyed
the supreme power. Let any place of Scripture be produced,
which takes away their right from princes, which divests them
of the sovereignty, and gives it to the Christian priests. In

* [ Apostolis interdicitur dominatus; est; interdicitur dominatio, inducitur
ergo et tibi. Tu usurpare audes, aut ministratio.—S. Bernardi de Considera-
dominus Apostolatum, aut Apostolus tione ad Eugenium IIL, lib. ii, ¢. 1, 2.
dominatum? Forma Apostolica hee Op., tom. i. col. 425, E.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. II,

SECT. V.

144 The Church does not deprive princes of temporal power.

arrenpix, the mean time let us believe with the universal Church, that

NO. VI.

our Lord Jesus, when He bestowed this new benefit upon
States, which were before ordained, that they should also
become churches of God, did in no sort diminish or weaken
their former rights, otherwise those verses of Sedulius sung
in the Catholic Church would be false’ :

Hostis Herodes, &c.

Why, impious Herod, dost thou fear,
That Christ our Saviour should appear?
He comes not earthly crowns to snatch,
Who does us crowns celestial reach.

To this testimony, not now of Sedulius, but of the Catho-
lic Church, agree those of many popes of Rome, as those of
Gelasius and Pelagius produced above. Of Gregory the
Great I shall speak in the fourth chapter’. Pope Nicholas °,
who succeeded Benedictus in the year of our redemption
858, says in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael, “ Do no pre-
judice to the Church of God; for she does no prejudice
to your empire.” If the Church is no way prejudicial to
princes, who before Christianity was embraced enjoyed the
supreme government in their principalities, then their rights
remain to them untouched; nor is that true which is now
taught, that the pope of Rome is the Lord of the whole earth,
and that directly, as is daily asserted in public at Rome, and
by some persons also elsewhere: besides it is most certain
and notorious, that whatever right ecclesiastical persons now
enjoy in things temporal, is all owing to the liberality of
Christian emperors and princes; who when they indulged so
many rights and privileges to ecclesiastics, assuredly thought
of nothing less than of thereby divesting themselves of the
sovereign authority, and transferring it upon the Church:
on which account that has place here, which Pope Hormisda
says in his Epistle to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica’,

ritium, Op., tom. ii. 676, A; as may be
seen from Bellarmine de Rom. Pontif.,
lib. v. cap. iii., Op. tom. i. p. 434, from
which this part of Casaubon’s treatise

y [Hostis Herodes impie,
Christum venire quid times ?
Non eripit mortalia,

Qui regna dat ceelestia.

Sedulii Hymnus, |. 30. Op., p. 374.
Rome, 1794. et Brey. Rom. in Festo
Epiphan. ad Vesp. |

z [The passage referred to is, Po-
testas super omnes homines domino-
rum meorum pietate ccelitus data est —
S. Greg. M., lib, iii. Epist. 65. ad Mau-

is derived. |

a [ Nolite prejudicium Ecclesiz Dei
irrogare; illa quippe nullum imperio
vestro prejudicium infert.—Nicolai
Pape I., Epist. viii. ad Michaelem Imp.
ap. Concilia, tom. ix. col. 1343, E.]

> [Quo pudore, rogo, privilegia circa

Powers of the Christian emperors. 145

“With what face, I pray you, do you desire that their privi-
leges should remain with you, who do not keep their com-
mands ? or covet that that reverence should be paid to you by
the ecclesiastical authority, which you yourself do not pay to
the faith?’ Hormisda indeed speaks of another matter, but
the same reason does plainly hold also in this argument: for
there is likewise this rule in the canon law of the Greek
Church, 6 dwpnocdpevos Bacireds, ef dyapiotias TapewTrécot
Aoyos, dvarauBaver TH Swpeav: “a king who bestows any
gift, does upon the ingratitude of him on whom it is bestowed,
resume his grant.” And the Greek fathers allege this rule
in the dispute concerning privileges granted to the Church
by the emperors. And that most just axiom of the Longo-
bardic law is known to every one; “he loses his fief or fee‘,
who wittingly denies he holds it as a fief’ Which yet isa
much less crime than if you contend that he is your subject
whom formerly you acknowledged as your lord and lawful
prince. We may add the examples of former times, which
ought to have the force of law: for from Constantine the Great,
who was the first Christian prince, all the emperors, especially
those of the east, and as many also of those of the west as
understood that the authority of their dominion was given
them by God; they all, I say, enjoyed the supreme authority
in the Christian state: and the very same right was after-
wards most deservedly claimed by the kings of several nations,
who succeeded in the place of those emperors. Therefore
that was ever most firmly believed by all, which is frequently
inculcated by the Greek interpreters, both of the civil and
canon law: 70 vouobeTety aveitas Tots Baownedor, “ the right
of making laws in the state is granted only to princes.” And
when the same princes, by the suggestion or consent of the
bishops, summoned synods, especially such as were greater
than ordinary, they presently confirmed the decrees of those
synods by their authority: for the right of summoning and

te illorum manere desideras, quorum € [Vasallus si feudum ex certa
mandata non servas? et reverentiam, scientia inficiatur et inde convictus
quam non exhibes fidei, cupis tibi fuerit expoliabitur.—Feudorum Con-
Ecclesiastica potestate deferri?—Hor- suetudines, lib. ii, tit. xxvi, 3. ap.
misde Pape Epist. xxii., ad Doro- Corp. Jur. Ciy.]

theum, ibid., tom. vy. col, 597, B. ]

HICKES. jut

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II,

SECT. V.

APPENDIX.

‘NO. VI.

146 = The emperors summoned and confirmed councils ;

convening assemblies is derived from the prince. - But they
who deny that synods of old used to be convened by the
command of the emperors and princes, deny a thing that is
most true, most certain, most notorious, and attested beyond
all contradiction ; they deny a thing, of the truth of which
even to doubt is shameful ignorance and stupidity: they
deny a thing, the proof of which is so manifest, that to go
against it is making war upon truth, openly undertaking
the defence of a lie, and bidding defiance to ingenuity and
modesty. Excuse me, I beseech you, candid reader, for I
am not able to contain myself, when I see great men using
or rather abusing the subtilty of their wit, not to rescue the
memory of things done from oblivion, but to overwhelm them
with it. All men know, not only that bishops were called
together by the prince’s letters; but also that they had the
use of the public carriages allowed them by the royal grants.
And princes were present at councils, either themselves in
person, or by their command the presidents of provinces, or
others whom they appointed. But the dignity, authority,
and power of the Church was then most eminent, when the
prince being contented to act as an asserter of good order
and lawful power, in all things else behaved himself as a pri-
vate person: and the fathers on the contrary transacted all
things according to the authority delivered to them by God,
presided over the council, determined ecclesiastical controver-
sies, pronounced concerning the orthodox faith, confuted
heretics out of Christ’s doctrine, delivered over the contuma-
cious to destruction, prescribed canons and ecclesiastical laws
to the Church, and lastly amended and superseded the very
decrees of the emperors, concerning matters only ecclesiasti-
cal, where they were repugnant to the sacred canons. This
was the lawful power of the fathers ; this the true liberty of
the Church, which if any one think is to be little esteemed,
I would fain know what such a one accounts great in human
affairs. But because, as has been shewn above, bishops have
received no coercive power from God, whereby they may
forcibly compel the Christian people to receive their decrees,
though synodical canons had their authority with godly per-
sons without any imperial sanction, nay even in spite of all
the opposition and rage of the emperors against them, as in

were called temporal heads of the Christian people. 147

the first ages of the Church, yet that they might have a place
in the Christian state, and that process might be issued out
against such as disobeyed them, the assistance of the civil
power was implored: accordingly the pious emperors, by their
imperial authority, or (as the civilians speak) according to
the plenitude of their power, enacted that those things which
the fathers had decreed in the Church should be received by
all the people, and gave sanction thereto by the addition of a
penalty. Thus those canons, which, while supported only by
the episcopal authority, were received by none but the good
and holy, as soon as the weight of the civil authority was
added to them, restrained the wicked, and such as despised
the heavenly Deity. And this is what was said above of the
material sword’s supplying the deficiency of the spiritual.
There are extant almost innumerable edicts of emperors and
kings, by which synods, especially such as were general, are
confirmed. The Greeks call them dvatadypata, or Oeoric-
pata, or xpycdBovaAra KupodvTa Tas cuvodiKas anopacers,
“edicts, or golden bulls to confirm synodical sentences by
royal authority,” that is, cupodv, “to authorize.” The Greek
writers of politics, by the words 70 xdpos and 70 Kpatos, express
that principality or sovereign authority, which we said must
be only one in a state, as there is but one head in one man:
for which reason, as the bishop is wont to be called the head
of his Church, so in ancient monuments the emperor is styled
caput temporale populi Christiani, “the temporal head of the
Christian people,” and temporale caput mundi, “ the temporal
head of the world :” and likewise rector et temporale caput
fidelium, “the ruler and temporal head of the faithful’ As
therefore the 70 xdpos, or “supreme authority” in the state is
but one: so the ro kupodr, the right of authorizing and giving
sanction to any thing, that it may have the force of a law, is
in the prince alone. ‘To the fathers therefore assembled in
council the Greeks do rightly ascribe tas arogdcets, “the
right of pronouncing what is holy, and what not:” but the
right tod xupodr, of giving sanction to the decrees of a synod,
so that they may obtain the force of a law, this they attribute
to the princes. So you read in the canon law, that eccle-
siastical affairs are administered by a synodical xp/ce., or
“judgment,” and are confirmed by the royal émexpioc:, or as

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II.

SECT, V.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

148 The emperors gave to the canons the force of law.

it were “second judgment.” In the synodical epistle about
not forcing away bishops from their metropolis: ebpéOn Te Kat
TOLOUTOV yevomevoy KplaEeL TUVOLLKH, Kal ETLKPLoEL Bact-
hixyn Kuvpwber, that is, “ there was also found something like
done by the decree of the synod, and confirmed by the after-
decree of the emperor :” a propriety of words worthy to be
observed. To the same purpose it is written there a little
after, that the emperors do émurdpayifew ta Kexpiméva, “ put
the seal of their authority to the decrees of the fathers.” Nor
ought it to be passed by in silence, that in the same canon
law the canons of the fathers are called érictadpara, as if you
should say “injunctions ;” the emperors’ edicts, tpootaypata,
“commands.” What need of more words? read over carefully
the lives of all the ancient Christian princes, and peruse the
ancient civil and canon law, you will never find one instance
where the decrees either of any council or of any pope, re-
lating to the universal Church, had the force of a law in the
state before they received that right from the prince, who is
the head of the state: which custom, as in the most noble
kingdom of France it was both instituted from the beginning,
and afterwards observed with great religion by our ancestors;
so is it now also preserved as a great arcanum of government
by the most honourable bench in all the supreme courts.
This is that right and liberty of the kingdom, upon which
those that in the language of the law are called the liber-
ties of the Gallican Church, rest as upon their basis and
foundation.

Having thus explained the comparison which I made
between the sacerdotal and civil power, I now come to that
which was proposed in the beginning, to enquire whether
the primitive Church knew and made use of any liberty:
for all Catholics agree in this, that the Church of God, the
nearer it was to the times of Christ its head, and of the
holy Apostles, did the more plentifully and signally abound
in all those virtues which are proper and necessary to God’s
Church. Let us see therefore if possibly any footsteps of
the modern ecclesiastical liberty can be observed in the
ancient monuments of those times.

But here we ought to call to mind what was said above,
that the Church in the time of its infancy was so in the

The relation of the Church to the State at the first. 149

State, as that yet it was not reckoned a part of the State;
insomuch that it had its interests wholly separate and dis-
tinct from those of the State. For its ruin was for some
ages attempted with all kinds of punishments, and the most
eruel torments, by those who governed the State. God
could indeed from the beginning have enlightened the
minds of the Roman emperors with the bright beams of
the Gospel; He could have made them nursing fathers to
His Church, as the prophet foretells, and as it afterwards
happened; and have made use of their help and ministry
for the propagation of the Christian doctrine: but our great
and good God is thus always used to despise the assistance
and counsels of men, in bringing about all matters of the
greatest moment: and it was besides most just, that that
pattern of life which He had set them upon earth should
be followed also by His disciples, and that they should leave
an example of the same to their posterity. And as before
the sun was created God said “Let there be light,’ that
mortals might not think themselves obliged for so great a
benefit only to the sun: so, that we might not believe that
the doctrine of salvation was first embraced, and afterwards
propagated through the world by the power of princes, the
providence of God discharged all earthly powers from this
province. Add to this, that while the Church of God was
by this method severed from the rest of the world, and sub-
sisted not so much in place as in its doctrines and institu-
tions; it did so much more conveniently preserve its holi-
ness, piety, and integrity undefiled, as it was farther set apart
and removed from the commerce of this life: for those first
believers used this world after such a manner, as if they
had not used it [at] all, as the Apostle adviseth; while at
the same time by the flagrant zeal of their piety, the in-
nocency of their manners, their mutual love and sincere
affection among themselves, their unfeigned humility, their
constant meditation upon future blessedness, their fidelity
and obedience to the civil powers, as far as their con-
sciences would permit; and lastly, by their inexpressible and
more than human constancy in suffering torments for the
true religion, they became daily a spectacle to the whole
world, and extorted admiration from their very enemies,

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. II.

SECT. V.

APPENDIX,
__NO. VI.

150 The three points of the liberty claimed for the Church.

whether they would or no. These were the beginnings of
the Christian religion when first born, this the infancy of
the Church of Christ, which was rendered happy by tor-

- ments, glorious by ignominy, rich by contemning riches,

Acts 5, 29,

1 ie for-
sooth,” sci-
licet, orig. }

and august by a crown, not of empire, but of martyrdom.
And yet this holy Church and beloved of God, knew no
other liberty but spiritual, which the ancient fathers call
Christian. This, as was said above, is nothing else but a
vehement desire of serving God; and those first Christians
inflamed with that desire, notwithstanding all their princes’
endeavours to hinder them, held their communions, and
convened their synods, at first indeed privately, but after-
wards daring to break out mto the open light, they in-
trepidly exercised all the parts of ecclesiastical discipline
with a holy liberty: for they had learned of the Holy Spirit,
and by the example of St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles,
that God was to be obeyed rather than men. Nor indeed
did they know any other title of that liberty which they
used; for as to that which is now called the liberty of the
Church, and is defended with so much zeal, as if it were
a certain palladium of the Christian religion, and is com-
mended and augmented daily, those pious souls did not
know so much as the name of it.

That there are three principal heads of this ecclesiastical
liberty, appears from the definition of it above collected, viz.,
the empire of the pope of Rome over all secular dignities,
the exemption of ecclesiastics from all civil power, and the
subjection of the laity to their command in every thing.
Which of these can we find in the primitive Church? to wit’
the emperors were under the government of the popes of
Rome, who all down to Sylvester, except a very few, ended
their lives by cruel torments at the command of those princes.
If those magnanimous heroes thought that the government
of the world, as we are now taught, did belong to them by
divine right, why did not they give some signification of it,
at least at that time, when the multitude of believers had
been sufficient to have asserted their dominion? for that
they were able to prosecute their right by arms was shewed
many ages after by Gregory II., by whose example after-
wards almost innumerable other popes have waged very

None of these could exist in the first centuries. 151

dreadful wars with princes for the pontifical dignity. And
as to what many now say, that the authority of the Roman
pontiffs is only over believing, not unbelieving emperors, and
that therefore it was necessary for them to dissemble this
right till the times of Constantine the Great, that is both
false and very ridiculous: for we do not speak here of the
spiritual power, in regard of which even princes bowed their
heads to the bishops, as Gelasius said. But why should
Constantine’s power in civil matters be less full and free
than that of his father Constantius, or of Dioclesian, or
any other of the former emperors? And there is also the
Same reason with respect to the exemption of the clergy.
For as he is to be accounted an enthusiast who pretends
that they enjoyed that privilege before there were Christian
princes; so they that exempt them from subjection to such
princes act both unjustly and ridiculously: to say nothing
of their manifest impiety, who (as I shall shew in the sequel)
miserably wrest the most plain words of the holy Scripture,
to make them speak their own sense. But they who refer
the original of this ecclesiastical liberty and immunity to the
laws of Zephyrinus® and Caius‘, or of other popes, laws made
amidst the very flames of a cruel persecution, if they had
any thing of right judgment left, would never traduce these
holy men with a suspicion of so absurd an ambition. For
it cannot be denied to be most absurd, that those popes
should attempt to take off the yoke of that civil power from
others, to which they themselves were so much subject, that
themselves were led forth to suffer punishment at the com-
mand of their most barbarous princes. And to what purpose
is it to speak of those services performed by the laity towards
the ecclesiastics, which at that time were so much the more
willingly paid as they were less demanded. The Apostle

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,.
CHAP. IT.
SECT. V.

writing to the Galatians says, “I bear you record, that, if it Gal. 4. 15.

had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes,
and have given them to me.” But neither was that Apostle,
as his Epistles shew, nor the rest of the Apostles such as
would burden the Churches of God with superfluous exac-

e [S. Zephyrini pape (A.D. 201) f [S. Caii pape (A.D. 283) Epis-
Epistole duz (supposititiz) ap. Con- tola decretalis (supposititia,) ibid., col.
cilia, tom. i. col. 620, sqq. | 942. ]

152) The existence and growth of evil in the Church ;

arvenpix. tions, and fresh demands of services without end, as was
xo “*— afterwards done. And when the first bishops of the Church,
being men of great sanctity, did wholly conform themselves
to this example, there is no doubt but the people also on
their side were most ready to pay all those observances
which were required of'them: for those pious pastors, con-
tenting themselves with what was necessary, neither coveted
to lord it over the people under them, nor over one another:
but as St. Cyprian says, “ Every one governed that portion
of the universal flock which was allotted to him, as one that
was to render an account of what he did to the Lord.” But
in truth the Church of God is not without reason compared
to a field in the holy Scriptures: this field at first, sowed with
good seed, and cultivated with the greatest diligence by the
householder, was after a very little time attempted to be
corrupted by that old deceiver the devil; and from that
time amongst the bright and good corn there began to grow
up docks, thistles, and wild oats. Some from the known
path of the right faith have deviated into unknown ways:
other have changed the heat of their former zeal into a
remiss lukewarmness: some have heaped up riches: many
even of the very husbandmen of the Lord’s field have gaped
after honours, and wholly given themselves up to ambition:
for no sooner had the Church a little enjoyment of peace
allowed her by her external enemies, but all these intestine
evils immediately breaking in upon her together in crowds,
did wonderfully destroy her former beauty. St. Cyprian
(de Lapsis) speaking of the most severe Decian persecution,
says", “ If the cause of the slaughter is known, the cure also
of the wound is discovered. Our Lord had a mind that His
family should be proved, and because a long peace had cor-
rupted that discipline which was given us from heaven, this
divine chastisement has raised our faith, which was fallen,
and I had almost said, was asleep.” The holy man afterwards
describing the corruption of the Church at large, among

probari familiam suam voluit; et quia

8 [Singulis pastoribus portio gregis ) am suam it; et
traditam nobis divinitus disciplinam

sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque

e’ gubernet, rationem sui actus Domino
redditurus.—S. Cyprian, Epist. lv. ad
Cornelium, Op., p. 85. ]

h [Si cladis causa cognoscitur, et
medela vulneris invenitur. Dominus

pax longa corruperat, jacentem fidem
et pene, ut ita dixerim, dormientem
censura ccelestis erexit.—Id. de Lap-
sis, Op., p. 182.]

the secularity and ambition of bishops. 153

other evils mentions this as much the greatest, that bishops
did already in that age begin to mingle secular cares with
their spiritual ministry. ‘ Very many bishops,” says he’,
“ who ought to have been both a consolation and an example
to the rest, despising the providence of God, became pro-
viders of secular things for themselves; leaving their sees,
deserting their flocks, and wandering about through other
provinces, they frequented markets, and hunted after gain ;
gave no relief to their hungry brethren in the Church ;
coveted great wealth; seized upon estates by fraud and
treachery, and increased their riches by usury.” And those
evils are very like these, and yet more grievous, which Eu-
sebius relates concerning the ambition of the bishops, and
their desire of power, in the beginning of his eighth book*,
where he is explaining the causes for which God raised
that most violent persecution which the Church suffered
under the reign of Dioclesian. Besides at that time the
discipline of the Church was fallen into so much contempt,
that the authority of the spiritual sword being grown obso-
lete, the synod which met at Antioch about the year of
Christ 275, was obliged to implore the assistance of the
civil sword against the contumacy of Paul of Samosata!, from
Aurelian a heathen prince, and soon after a most deadly
enemy to the Church. And this was the state of the Church
then, when divine providence beyond all hopes was pleased
to put a new face of affairs upon it.

* [Episcopi plurimi, quos et horta-
mento esse oportet czteris et exemplo,
divina procuratione contemta, procura-
tores rerum secularium fieri, derelicta
cathedra, plebe deserta, per alienas pro-
vincias oberrantes, negotiationis quzs-
tuose nundinas aucupari, esurientibus
in ecclesia fratribus (non subvenire,
ed. Pamel.), habere argentum largiter
velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus ra-

HICKES,

pere, usuris multiplicantibus foenus
augere.—Id., ibid., p. 183. ]

k [Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. viii. ec. 1.
tom. i. pp. 376, 377. |

1 [Id.,ibid., lib. vii. c. 34, p. 364. The
emperor however was ouly called on to
oblige Paul to give up the see house,
after he had been deposed by the synod
and another made bishop in his place, ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II.

SECT. V.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

OAPI.

WHAT AND OF WHAT KIND THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS FROM THE
TIMES OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT TO GREGORY THE GREAT, BISHOP OF
ROME.

Tue Church of God had passed near three hundred years
amidst almost continual torments, adorned with a crown of
martyrdom, and generally with the purple of her own blood,
when it pleased our great and good God at last to rescue her
from the yoke of the most cruel tyrants: for now those
wished for times were come, which the Lord had promised
many ages before, and His prophets had foretold, when the
kings of the earth should surrender themselves and their
sceptres to Messiah the king, and not only adore Him in an
humble manner, but also become nursing fathers, pastors,
and defenders of His Church. Therefore the Church’s long
servitude was at last succeeded by that liberty which Con-
stantine the Great first procured for her, and which the
Christian emperors that followed him did afterwards pre-
serve and variously augment. But because the meaning,
extent, and rights of this liberty altered according to the
times, as we have shewed in the first chapter; therefore that
it may be clearly and distinctly understood how that ancient
liberty differed from this modern, which is so often called the
liberty of the Church, we will mark the difference of times,
and consider them separately. Therefore we observe three
ages of ecclesiastical liberty in history, which are wonderfully
different from each other. For from Constantine the Great,
the first author of it, for three hundred years and somewhat
more, the Church flourished under the reign of emperors
and kings, contented with the sole administration of spiritual
and ecclesiastical matters, and perfectly free from all con-
tagion of temporal dominion. This is the second age of the
Church, which for method sake we bound with the ponti-
ficate of Pelagius II., predecessor to Gregory the Great™.
After that followed another age, in which the clergy were
first compelled to concern themselves in the administration
of secular affairs, the exigence of the times so requiring.

™ [The pontificate of Pelagius IT, ended A.D. 590.)

The liberty first allowed to the Church, in four points. 155

But afterwards of their own accord they undertook the care
of such things, and pretended that it belonged to them.
We fix the bounds of this time from Gregory the Great to
Gregory VII." Then first were laid the foundations of the
modern liberty of the Church, which being remarkably aug-
mented and confirmed by Gregory VII. when it had now
taken deep root, was afterwards enlarged by various occa-
sions and divers arts in the following times, and at last
brought to that form which was shewn in the first chapter.
And that this liberty of the later ages had nothing common
with that former liberty, of which Constantine the Great
was author, I am confident will be acknowledged by all
who impartially read what shall be said in this chapter. But
lest in this most copious argument I should wander too far,
I shall fix certain bounds to this present disquisition.

I. The Christian Church received the liberty of religion
from princes.

Whatever right the Church obtained from the liberty
granted her by the ancient emperors, may be all conveniently
referred to these four heads; the free profession of religion,
which the emperors Constantine and Licinius in their edict
eall the “liberty of religion®:” that immunity which Justi-
nian? styles éXevOepia THV NevToupynuator, “ liberty from
public burdens:” the exemption of the clergy from secular
tribunals: and lastly, the authority also of hearing and
judging the causes of the laity. Of what sort these rights
were in those times, of which I propose to treat in this
chapter, shall be explained in their order. Liberty of re-
ligion was the name given by the emperors to that free
power of doing all things which were requisite to the plenary
exercise of the Christian religion: of which kind are the
right of meeting together at public prayers, and the holy
communion ; that of building churches ; convening synods ;
and using ecclesiastical discipline. Therefore Eusebius re-
lates4, that after the publication of this edict, the people
with an incredible joy and alacrity met freely together ;

" [From A.D. 590 to A.D. 1073. p [Auth. Coll. iv. Tit. xxiv. Novell.

° [thy érevbeptay tis ApnoKetos.— 405. c. 1, ap. Corp. Jur. Civ. ]
Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. x.c. 5. p. 480. } a [Euseb., ibid., lib. x. c. 2. p. 463. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.

CHAP. IIT.

156 The power of convening synods allowed to the Church ;

arrenpix. began to build churches in several places, and held many
<°“*— synods; and all this the Christians had done long before :
but then first éXev@épws Kal amddoTws, as the emperors ex-
press it", that is, “freely and without any reserve.” They err
dangerously in many things, who make no distinction be-
tween the power given by God to the Church, and that which
is owing to the prince. The former distinguishes the Church
from the State, and makes it a people peculiar to God:
the latter unites the Church and State together, and admits
the Church to a participation of the same right with the
other members of the State: for, as was said above, the
Church was hitherto so in the State, as that yet it was not
reckoned a part of it: and therefore did not enjoy an equal
right with the rest of the people, nor had almost any other
avenger of her injuries and despised discipline, but God only.
But when she obtained liberty of religion from the prince, he
also became both the avenger of her injuries, and the keeper
and defender of her ecclesiastical discipline. From whence
it came likewise to pass afterwards, that heretics, who till
then had been in the same case with the orthodox Catholics
under the government of heathen princes, were separated
from the Church by Constantine’s edict, and deprived of that
liberty which was granted to the Catholics’. And ecclesias-
tical history is full of the like edicts of princes against heretics.

II. The ancient Church under Christian princes was wont to
convene synods, either by the prince’s express command, or
with his tacit consent.

I have already said, that when the emperors by their edicts
granted the Church liberty of religion, they gave her at the
same time a right of freely convening synods, for this is a
part of the Christian worship altogether necessary and essen-
tial. Therefore those synods which Eusebius mentions to
have been convened immediately after this liberty was
granted‘, (as those of Ancyra" and Neocesarea*, the canons

* [Ibid., c. 10. p. 48].]

8 [kata rovtwy 5 mdvTev vduov Oé-
Hevos 6 BactAeds, mpocérater apaipebjvat
avTa@v Tovs evKTNplous olkous, Kal Tals
€xkAnoias cuvdwtecOat Kal pre ev
oiklats (iwrav, unre Snuoclos eKKAN-
oafew.—Sozom. Eccl. Hist, lib. ii.

c. 32. p. 90.]

[émokdmwy ém ravrd cuvedctoes.
—Euseb. E. H., lib. x. c. 3. p. 464. ]

® [(A.D. 314.) Concilia, tom. i. col.
1485, sqq. |

x ((A.D. 3814.) ibid., col.
sqq. ]

1509,

larger, with, smaller without the emperor’s leave. 157

of both which are still extant,) though they are not said
to have met by the command of Constantine, yet were sup-
ported by the royal authority, no less than their daily assem-
blies. But here we meet with a distinction especially to be
observed between local and particular synods and cecumeni-
cal or general councils; for those indeed are said to have
been gathered together sometimes by the metropolitans and
other bishops, without the express command or consent of
the prince ; sometimes by the emperor’s mandate: but cecu-
menical councils are never read to have been assembled in
those times without the prince’s command. The reason of
the difference is, that as metropolitan bishops and patriarchs
had a plenary power first from Christ, and then also from
the prince, to provide for the necessities of the Churches
committed to their charge, so the prince looked upon it as
his duty and right to preserve ecclesiastical discipline as well
in all the parts of the Church as in the whole, and to take
care that the orthodox faith should receive no manner of
innovation. Therefore Constantine the Great, as was ob-
served above, was wont to say that he was constituted by
God a bishop or overseer, Tay éxtos, “of those without,”
which Eusebius’, in the first book of his life, refers to this
care of calling synods; for speaking there of the other care
he took to assist and reform the State, he says’, Yet bestow-
ing a peculiar concern upon the Church of God, seeing dis-
sensions in divers places were risen among the bishops, he,
like some common bishop appointed by God, cuvddous tav
Geov Nevtovpyev cvvexpoTes, summoned synods of God’s mi-
nisters.” This is to be understood of local synods. And
hence it manifestly appears that Constantine, by his autho-
rity, convened lesser councils, as often as either of himself,
or by the suggestion of the bishops, he judged there was
need of a public assembly of the fathers. It was also the
custom that they who suspected the synods of their province
petitioned the prince to grant them judges. The Donatists

Y [Euseb. de Vita Const., lib. iv. c. dépovs xmpas, oia Tis Kowds éemtoKoros
24, p. 638. See above, p. 139.] ex Oeov Kabeatapevos, cvydd0us THY Tod

2 { ekalperov be TH exxAnola Tod Oeod Oeod Acitovpyav ouverpdtet.—Euseb.
Thy wap avTod veuwy dppovTida’ Siape- Vit. Constant., lib. i.c.44, Eccl. Hist.,
pomevwv Tivav mpos GAANAoUS Kare Sia- tom. i. pp. 523, 524. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. IIL.

SECT. II.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

1(“Pietas ;”
orig. |

158 Constantine was appealed to by the Donatists ;

did this when Anulinus, pro-consul of Africa, urged them,
by Constantine’s command®*, to be reconciled to Cecilianus,
orthodox bishop of Carthage. That was the first example
given in the Christian Church in a matter of this nature:
for they who say that before that Paulus Samosatenus ap-
pealed from the synod to the Emperor Aurelian, do not
consider that they were pious bishops, convened in the
synod of Antioch, who prudently and profitably made use
of the assistance of the civil power to expel that contuma-
cious heretic out of the bishop’s see. But the reason of the
Donatists was quite different. For they petitioned the em-
peror for impartial judges, such as were not suspected,
who might take cognizance of an ecclesiastical cause. For
these are their words in Optatus Milevitanus®: “There are
contentions between us and the other bishops in Africa ;
we beseech your holiness’ to command that judges be
given us out of Gaul.” You see that judgment in eccle-
siastical matters is not removed by appeal to the emperor,
but only this, he is desired by his authority to command a
synod that is unsuspected, to be convened. They therefore
who condemn the example because it comes from the Dona-
tists4 do judge very much amiss; for at the same time they
condemn a great many bishops of Rome, and other most
holy men, who are known to have petitioned the emperors
to summon new councils against former synods, as I shall
observe of the Nicene fathers, St. John Chrysostom, Inno-
cent I., Leo, and others. And as to what Optatus says®, that
Constantine answered the Donatists “with great anger, and
reproved them for asking judges of him, who was invested
only with secular authority, and had nothing to do in the
spiritual government of the Church,” the meaning of it is,
that Constantine gave them to understand that it were
better and more desirable if the bishops would act among
themselves with so much friendship and concord that none

7 [Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. x. c. 6. a4 [As Baronius, Annal. Eccl., ann.
p- 487.] 314, n. 35, 36. ]
> [See above, p. 153. j € [Quibus lectis, Constantinus pleno

¢ [In Africa inter nos et cateros livore respondit. In qua responsione et
episcopos contentiones sunt; petimus, eorum preces prodidit, dum ait: Petitis
ut de Gallia nobis judices dari preci- me in szeculo judicium, cum ego ipse
piat pietas tua.—S. Optat. Milev. de Christi judicium expectem.—S. Optat.
Schism. Donat., lib. i. c. 22, p. 19.] Miley., ibid., lib. i. c. 23, p. 20.]

he provided that their case should be again considered. 159

of them might have any occasion to desire help from the casaveon
prince ; which because it was then done first by the Dona- ‘YoG.”
tists, and that without just cause, what wonder is it that CV‘l ™
the emperor, being most desirous to preserve peace and”=
unity in the Church, and moved with the newness of the

thing, received them with expressions of some sharpness ?
especially since wise men are used to animadvert, not with-

out severity, upon all new examples. And that example of

the Donatists could not but be new, since it was not long

before that, that the Church of God began to be subject to
Christian emperors. Constantine did indeed judge very
rightly that nothing was more to be wished by all men

than that no such contention should ever happen among
bishops. But the same pious emperor also knew and firmly
believed that when any such misfortune did happen it was

the duty of a Christian prince to take care, by his authority,

that the matter should be determined by those to whom

it appertained to judge of causes relating to the faith or
discipline of the Church. Therefore Optatus adds‘, “ And

yet judges were granted them, Maternus of the city of
Cologne, Retitius of the city of Autun, Marinus of Arles.”
Afterwards he mentions a council held at Rome by Con-
stantine’s command: for neither did those three bishops

alone hear the cause, but among many others whose names

are there mentioned, these three, with Melchiades bishop of

Rome, were the chief. There is extant in the tenth book of
Eusebius’ History a letter of Constantine, in form, sent to
Melchiades and these three above-mentioned (in the same

words as is usual in letters of form®) upon the calling of that
council. The letter is subscribed! thus: Kwvotavtivos Xe-' (rather
Baoros Mirtiddy (as most of the Greek books call Melchi- seribed.”]
ades) érucKxoTw ‘“Pwpaiwy, cal Mapxw. The learned inter-

preter of Nicephorus translates it", Constantinus Augustus
Miltiadi episcopo Romanorum et Marco, &c.: ‘‘ Constantine

the emperor to Miltiades bishop of the Romans, and to
Mark,” &c. It seems to have been in the Greek copy, «ai

‘ [Et tamen dati sunt judices, Ma- g Litere Formate.
ternus ex Agrippina civitate, Reticius h [{Nicephori Callisti Eccles. Hist.
ab Augustoduno civitate, Marinus Are- Lat. Vers. Io. Lang., lib. viii. cap. 43.
latensis.—S. Optat. Milev. de Schism, tom. i. p. 248. Par. 1566.]
Donat., lib. i. c. 23. p. 20.)

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

160 The emperor committed the judgment to the bishops.

Madpk@ nai dovrois, “and to Mark and to the rest.” So
they who copy letters of form put down the name only of
one, or at most of two of those to whom these letters were
sent; therefore those words, «al dovzois, “and to the rest,”
signify that like copies were also sent to the rest, whose
names are set down, as those of Retitius, Maternus, and
Marinus are in this Epistle, from whence it appears that the
name of Mark has erroneously crept into this superscrip-
tion in the room of that of Maternus or Marinus, and that
instead of cal Mapxq, “and to Mark,” should be written «at
Mapive, “and to Marinus,” or (which I less like) cal Ma-
Tépv@, “and to Maternus‘.” In that letter the emperor
commits the cognizance of this cause to Pope Melchiades
and to those three others in these words*: “It seems good
to me that the same Cecilian, with ten bishops who seem to
accuse him, and ten others whom he thinks necessary to-
wards the hearing of his cause, sail to Rome, that there
before you and Retitius, Maternus, and Marinus your col-
leagues, (whom therefore I have ordered to hasten to Rome,)
they may be heard, as you shall find the most venerable law
directs.” You see that an assembly of bishops was com-
manded by the prince, and that in the words wherein the sov-
ereign authority is administered, visum mihi, “It seems good
to me;” jussi, “I have ordered or commanded ;”’ but that
the judgment is left to the bishops, to determine by the
divine law and canons, for this is what he calls vouos ceSac-
potatos, “the most venerable law.” Besides the Donatists
did not acquiesce in the sentence of the council of Rome,
but appealed to the prince, a very ill example, as the pious
emperor most deservedly exclaimed against them!: “O raging
and audacious madness! they have interposed an appeal,
as is usual in the causes of the Gentiles.” But the Dona-
tists defended themselves with this pretence, that there were

* [See Valesius’ note in loc. Eu-

/ > “ “a 3 n
Tpocetata emiomevrat, OuvynOy axoved7-
seb. |

vat, ws dy KaTaudborre TS ceBacpw-

* [€0ke wor ty’ ards 6 KaukiAravds
mera Séxa emokdrwv Tov adTdy evOd-
vew doxotyTwy, kal Séka éErepwy ods adds
TH Eavtov dikn avarykatous broAdBou, eis
THY ‘Paunv TAG amiévau’ WW’ exeioe Suav
mapdvTwv, AAG why Kad ‘Perexlov Kab
Marepvoy kal Mapivov rev KkoAATyov
buay, ods ToUTOU Everev eis Thy ‘Péunv

Tate vou apudrrev.—Euseb. Eccl.
Hist., lib. x. c. 5. tom. i. p. 484. ]

' [O rabida furoris audacia! sicut
in causis gentium fieri solet, appella-
tionem interposuerunt.—Epist. Con-
stantini ad Cone. Arelat. S. Optat.
Milev., lib. i. c. ult.; et ap. Concilia,
tom. i. col. 1455, D. ]

Constantine’s conduct approved by St, Augustine. 161

fewer judges present in the Roman council than the great- casavson
ness of the cause required ; and indeed the event shewed that ?XUtP-
they only pretended this because they would not come to the or
point. Nor was the emperor ignorant of this, as appears from ——
his Epistle to Chrestus™. But again, Constantine also ob-
serves, that so many sick minds of those who abstained from

the communion of the Catholics throughout Africa could

not be restored to health by force and punishments; there-

fore being compelled by necessity, he summons a great
council at Arles. In a letter of form written for that pur-

pose are these words" : “I was to take care that the business,

which long since after the sentence given ought to have been
determined by their ready consent, may now, when more are
present, be at last certainly brought to an end. Therefore
having ordered very many bishops from divers and almost
numberless places to meet in the city of Arles before the

first of August, I thought fit to write also to you.” And St.
Augustine says rightly in his 162nd Epistle ’, that Constan-

tine in summoning this council “did by no means take upon

him to judge himself concerning the determination of the
fathers of the Roman council, but only so far received the
complaints of the Donatists as to grant them other bishops

to judge of them.” ‘Therefore St. Augustine found nothing

to condemn in this proceeding of Constantine. And in the

same Epistle, as he shews that he was not likely to commend

that bishop’s design who voluntarily desired to be cleared

by the pro-consul’s judgment or appealed to the emperor’s,

so he strenuously defends those bishops who had not de-

clined the judgment of him to whom the emperor had dele-

gated the cause, not obscurely commending the prince him-

self for having with his authority assisted the Church in her
distress. The most holy father’s words are these?: “A cer-

™ (This is the letter next quoted, to lib, x. c. 5. tom. i. p. 484. ]

Chrestus bishop of Syracuse. | ° { Neque enim ausus est Christianus
® [d0ev mpovonréov wo eyévero, bmws imperator sic corum tumultuosas et
TovTO, bwEep exphy eta Thy e€evexOei- fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de judi-

cav 70 Kplow, avlaipeTw ovykatabéce: cio episcoporum, qui Rome sederant
metavobat, Kay viv more buvnOh moAA@Y ipse judicaret; sed alios, ut dixi, epi-
mapdvtwy Téhouvs TvxEiv. emetdy Tolyuy scopos dedit.—S. Aug. Ep. xliii. (al.
mAelorous éx diapdpwy Kal Guv0jtwy Td- clxii.) ad Glorium, § 20. Op., tom. ii.
mwy emiskdmous eis Thy “Apetadnoiwy col. 97. C. ed. Ben.]

méAw elow Kadavidv Airyovotwy cuved- p [Ait enim quidam, non debuit
Geiy exeAcdcauev’ Kal coi ypdar evo- episcopus proconsulari judicio purgari :
uloapev, x,t. A.—Euseb. Eccl. Hist., quasi vero ipse sibi hoe comparayerit,

HICKES, Wi

APPENDIX,

NO, VI.

162 Constantine's judging in person was irregular.

tain Donatist says the bishop should not have been cleared
by the judgment of the pro-consul, as if he had procured
this for himself, and it had not been got by the emperor’s
order, to whose care, of which he must give an account to
God, that matter chiefly belonged.” If in the judgment of
so great a father Constantine did well, when the Donatists
were raising tumults in Africa to delegate the cause to the
pro-consul, who can blame him if after the council of Rome,
being overcome by the pertinacious animosity of those
wicked men, he chose rather to renew the hearing at Arles
by bishops, but those far more in number, than to use vio-
lence or punish with the sword? Therefore it is without
reason that in the Ecclesiastical Annals‘ there is a far differ-
ent judgment given of this fact of Constantine’s. But none
can wonder that he who from the beginning undertook by
all sorts of arguments to defend an opinion concerning eccle-
siastical and pontifical power very different from that of
St. Augustine, should also think and determine in this mat-
ter much otherwise than St. Augustine and all the ancient
Church did. Besides, when the Donatists did not acquiesce
in the judgment of the council of Arles neither, Constantine
seemed to have something deviated from the rigour of the
law when he determined to take cognizance himself of a
cause so often judged by the bishops; not by his imperial
authority to annul what had been well decreed by the
fathers, to whose cognizance those things belonged, but
wholly to cut off from such obstinate men all occasion of
wrangling, and by this means, if possible, to save them even
against their wills. Therefore St. Augustine intimates that
he was afterwards to ask pardon of the bishops for this too
hardy proceeding, but that an easy pardon, and deservedly
joined with the praise of him who seemed to have offended.
“T wish,” says he’, “the Donatists had put an end to their

ac non imperator ita queri jusserit;
ad cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo

primariz sedis antistite nefas esse cog-
nosci, &c.— Baronius, Annal. Eccl.,

redditurus esset, res illa maxime perti-
nebat.—Ibid., § 13. col. 93, 94. G, A.]

4 {At licet invitus hos judices de-
dit . .. tamen cum ipse, quod adhue in
fide rudis esset, judiciorum ecclesiasti-
corum ordinem ignoraret, &e.... sen-
tiens vero postea judicia episcoporum
ex divine legis prescripto .. . absque

ann. 313. n. 22.

. [Utinam saltem ipsius judicio in-
sanissimis animositatibus suis finem
posuissent, atqve ut eis ipse cessit, ut
de illa causa post episcopos judicaret, a
sanctis antistitibus postea veniam peti-
turus, dum tamen illi quod ulterius
dicerent, non haberent, si ejus senten-

The Council of Nice was summoned by him. 163

most furious animosities, at least upon the judgment of the
emperor, and as he yielded to them, to judge in that cause
after the bishops, for which he was afterwards to ask pardon
of the holy prelates, while yet they had nothing farther
to say if they would not submit to his sentence, to whom
themselves had appealed, so they would also once yield to
truth.” Therefore the prince’s taking cognizance of a cause
that had been judged by bishops, being done o/kovoytxds,
and by dispensation, as the ancient divines speak, should
neither be interpreted maliciously, as they do who severely
accuse the emperor on that account, nor again be rashly
drawn into example, as was observed from Gelasius in the
former chapter. But his calling the synods of Rome and
Arles, and delegating the cause to the bishops, this the
emperor did by virtue of his own authority ; and the same
right was always most religiously made use of, both by other
pious emperors and especially by this Emperor Constantine
during his life. He therefore, when he saw that the flame
kindled in Egypt by Arius was not extinguished by so many
local synods of the Egyptian bishops, interposed his own
authority, and by a sharp Epistle* called back to their duty
both Arius, whose impiety was not yet publicly known, and
Alexander the bishop; and between these two contending
parties, as himself elegantly says‘, efpjyns mpvtavi éavTov
mpocayer etxotws, “by his own right' he makes himself a
mediator of peace.” But when that also had no success, the
most noble, most famous, and most august council of Nice
followed: I beseech you by whose persuasion, and at whose
command? If that be true which is now taught as an article
of faith, that nobody but the pope of Rome alone has right,
I do not say to convene a council, but so much as to mutter
any thing concerning ecclesiastical affairs, there can be no
doubt but that Sylvester bishop of Rome was the person that
summoned this council: this is therefore affirmed as certain
and undoubted by all those who are advocates for the liberty
of the Church. I pass over such sophisters and triflers as
know nothing of ancient history. But who would not admire
tie non obtemperarent, ad quem ipsi s [Apud Euseb, de Vita Const., lib.
provocaverant, sic et illi aliquando ce- ii. capp. 64—72. Eccl. Hist., tom.

derent veritati.—S. August., ibid.,§ 20. pp. 567, sqq. ]
col. 97. C, D.] t [ Ibid., c. 68. p. 569. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.
SECT. II.

' 7“ natu-
rally.”’]

164 Bishops, particularly those of Rome, advised,

aevenvix. that Cardinal Baronius" should write and assert this so posi-
—— tively ? For it is what none of the ancients have said. Why
therefore does he affirm it? At least so industrious an author
might produce something out of the treasures of antiquity,
which should seem to have given some occasion to suspect
this: but he cannot do so much as that, and therefore flies
to miserable conjectures concerning the example of Dionysius
bishop of Alexandria, formerly accused before Dionysius

bishop of Rome*, and concerning the legatine commission of

Osius’.

As to the old instance of Dionysius I shall speak of
that by and by, when I treat of appealing from synods.

But

that Osius the pope’s legate did those things which Baronius
says he did, may be as easily denied by any one, seeing no
history speaks of it, as it is affirmed by him, contrary to all

historians.

But to grant him this for the present, what will

follow from it more than that the emperor summoned this

council at the suggestion of Sylvester ?

And this will be

readily owned by all pious men, that the emperors were used
to be advised in this matter by the bishops, and especially by
the bishop of Rome, as the metropolitan of the chief see: for
we read that the bishops of Rome have also made use of most
humble petitions, to obtain of the emperors that they would
call councils, or if occasion required, that when called they
would delay their meeting. Pope Leo in his ninth Epistle to
the Emperor Theodosius?2, says, ‘‘ If your piety vouchsafe to
listen to our suggestion and supplication, that you may com-
mand a council of bishops to be held in Italy, all the scandals
may immediately be cut off which are raised to the disturb-

ance of the whole Church.”

The same Leo saith in his

forty-third Epistle to the Emperor Marcian?, “I had begged
of your most illustrious clemency that you would command
the synod, which was desired by us, and was judged necessary

« [Baronius, Annal. Eceles., ann.
325, n. 13.]

x [Ibid., ann. 318, n. 76.]

y [Ibid., ann. 325, n. 13. |

2 (Si pietas vestra suggestioni ac
snpplicationi nostre dignetur annuere,
ut intra Italiam haberi jubeatis episco-
pale concilium, cito auxiliante Deo
poterunt omnia scandala, que in per-
turbationem Ecclesiz totius sunt com-
mota, resecari.—S. Leonis M., Epist.

liv. (al. ix.) ad Theodosium, Op., tom.
i. col. 956, 957. ]

® [Poposceram quidem a gloriosis-
sima clementia vestra ut synodum,
quam ad reparandam Orientalis Eecle-
siz pacem etiam a nobis petitam, ne-
cessariam judicatis, aliquantisper dif-
ferri ad tempus opportunius juberetis.
—S. Leonis M., Epist. xe. (al. xlili.) ad
Marcianum, Op., tom. i. col. 1063. }

but the emperors themselves summoned, the councils. 165

by you, for to restore the peace of the eastern Church, to be
deferred a little to a more convenient time.” And Liberius,
ancienter than Leo, writing to 'Constantine?, saith, “ To en-
treat your lenity, that you would vouchsafe to hear our alle-
gations, I thought fit that my brother and fellow-bishop the
holy man Lucifer, with Pancratius my compresbyter, and
Hilarius a deacon, should come to you, who we trust will be
able without difficulty to obtain a council of your clemency
for the peace of all the Catholic Churches.” I pass over like
instances, which are very many, from which no man in his
wits can conclude that the emperor has no right of calling
synods: but from such testimonies it will rather clearly and
evidently follow, that bishops, especially the bishop of Rome,
as metropolitan of the chief see, were wont according to their
pastoral care in the Church of God, to put princes in mind of
calling councils ; and that princes by virtue of their supreme
authority in the State, of which the Church is a part, did
summon councils to meet. Therefore also that the Nicene
council was summoned by the emperor both manifest reason
shews, and the testimonies of ancient writers evince. Huse-
bius, in his third book of the Life of Constantine, calls the
emperor’s letter, by which this council was summoned‘, ézri-
taypna Constantini, “ Constantine’s mandate and command.”
Theodoret, in his first book, says, Constantine “ being deceived
with the hope of appeasing the tumults at Alexandria, tv
monvOpvrrntov exeivyny (micT@V) ets THY Nixaéwy cuvijyetpe
avvodov4, convened that most celebrated council of the
faithful at Nice in Bithynia.” Socrates and Gelasius and
others® do for that purpose make use of the word ovyxpoteiv,
“to summon or gather together: and the Nicene fathers
themselves, in the beginning of their epistle to the Alexan-
drians, attest themselves ocuvyxpotnOjvas', “to have been

> [Ad exorandam igitur mansuetu-
dinem tuam, ut benevolo animo alle-
gationes nostras audire digneris, fra-
trem et coepiscopum meum sanctum
virum Luciferum cum Pancratio com-
presbytero meo et Hilario diacono pla-
cuit proficisci; quos credimus de cle-
mentia tua ad pacem omnium Ecclesia-
rum catholicarum non difficulter posse
concilium impetrare.— Liberi1 Pap.
Epist. ii. ad Constantium, ap. Concilia,
tom. ii. col. 802, C. }

¢ [ovw hy 5€ amAovy Td emitayua.—
Euseb. de Vita Const., lib. iii. ¢. 6.
Hist. Eccl., tom. i. p. 579. ]

4 [ éreid}) Se THs CAmiB0s epedabn THY
moAvOpvAAntoy exetyny eis THY Nikaéwy
suvnyeipe svvodov. —Theodoret. Eccl.
Hist., lib. i. c. 7. tom. iii. p. 25.]

¢ 'Socrates, Eccl. Hist., lib. i. c. 8.
p- 18. Gelasius, Hist. Cone. Nic. c. v.
ap. Concilia, tom. ii. col. 161, C. So
Euseb, Vit. Const., lib. iii. c. 6. p. 579. ]

f [éweid) THs ToD Ocod xdpitos, Kah

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. II.
SECT. IL.
1'(* Con=
stantius.’”]

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

166 The council attests that it was summoned by the emperor.

gathered together by God and the emperor:
usual among the Greek ecclesiastical writers, concerning the
person who caused any synod to be held, and who summoned
it: it was properly said of the masters of the chorus among
the Athenians, whose office it was to furnish out a chorus,
each in his respective tribe at his own expense. Hereto
Eusebius had regard, when he called this very synod yopelav
éricxorrwv", “a chorus of bishops,” and el<ova yopetas azro-
oTonxijs, “ an image of the apostolic choir or college.” It is
said also of a general who raises an army; for in the Greek
historians you frequently read ouyxpoteiv otpatevya', “ to
raise an army.” ‘Theodoret and Sozomen, speaking of the
synod celebrated some years after at Czesarea in Palestine,
use the words 7pocéraéev and éxédevoer, “ ordered and com-
manded,” and signify that it was held by the command of
Constantine*. That synod was for the most part a conven-
ticle of factions and wretched men, that had conspired the
destruction of St. Athanasius: for the good emperor was im-
posed upon by the bishops, not discerning that they were
ravenous wolves hid under sheep’s clothing: therefore Theo-
doret excuses him for giving credit to wicked men, because
they were priests. ‘The same prince understanding the deceit
of these bishops, zpocétafev a@porcOjvat, says Theodoret',
“commanded another synod to be convened” in the city of
Tyre. The emperor himself in his epistle to that synod calls
his edict, by which he appointed the meeting of it™, céXevow,
his “ order or command :” also dpous avtoxpatopos b7rép evoe-
Betas é&eveyOévtas, “imperial decrees published for the sake
of religion :” and that bishops might not again abuse their
power of assembling to perpetrate any ill design, he says he
has" “sent Dionysius, a person of consular dignity, to be

an expression

Tov OeopiAeotatov Bacirews Kwvorav-
tlvov cuvayayovtos judas ex Siapdpwy
emapxi@v Kal médAcwy, 7 meydAn Kai
ayia ovvodos év Nikala suvexpornOn.—
Epist. Cone. Nic. ap. Concilia, tom. ii.
col. 81, D,]

& |auyKpotety yxopdv.— Demosth.,
cont. Mid., p. 520, 11.]

[Euseb. de Vita Const., lib. iii. ¢. 8.
tom. i. p. 580. ]

i fe. g. Xenoph. Hell. vi. 2, 12.
Perhaps the meaning of this expres-

sion is rather ‘‘to train or exercise” an
army. |

K [6 BaciAebs obvodov yeverOa mpo-
cétatey ev Kacapeta tis Madmortlyys.
—Sozom. H. E., lib. ii. ec. 25. p. 78.
Kakeioe KpiOjvar KeAedoar Tov ’ABavd-
cov meabels 5€ ws iepetow 6 Bactreds,
Tovro yeverOai mpocéeratey.— Theodoret.
H. E., lib. i.e. 28. p. 602]

! {Id., ibid. ]

m [Id., ibid., c. 29. p. 61.]

" [amréoreiAa Avovictoy Toy amd bra-

Other councils summoned by Constantine. 167

KaTacKoTov, an ‘inspector and observer’ of all that should casavson

be done by them, but especially of the moderation of each of gin :
them.” But this Dionysius abusing the power committed “UAr "™

SECT. IT,
to him, did not behave himself as the keeper and defender of = =—
discipline, but using open violence, changed the form of a
religious synod into that of a secular, and even of a tyrannical
convention. Therefore St. Athanasius in his second apology® [« Apology
does with justice deny that that can be called a synod: pore
“With what face,” says he, “dare they give the name of
synod to a convention, in which a count presided? Where
an executioner appeared, and a jailor admitted us, instead of
the deacons of the Church? He spoke, the bishops held their
peace, or rather obeyed the count: he commanded, we were
led by the soldiers.” This and more St. Athanasius says of
the violence used in that council. But the author of all this
ill was not so much the count as the Arian bishops them-
selves, who in the end of Constantine’s reign, and afterwards
under Constantius, Julian, and Valens, spared no violence
nor barbarity to destroy the true faith, and its great patron
St. Athanasius. But as soon as Constantine understood from
St. Athanasius? how things had been carried at Tyre, exerting
his royal power against the bishops of that conventicle, he
commands them all to appear in their formalities at Constan-
tinople, and give an account of the ill things they had com-
mitted. A synod also was assembled there, concerning which
Ruffinus says‘, “The emperor makes Arius come, who stayed
at Alexandria to no purpose, and by his imperial edicts calls
a council again at Constantinople.” I pass over the council
of Jerusalem, which followed that of Tyre, and consisted for
the most part of the same bishops. Since that assembled
chiefly to celebrate the feast of the dedication of the temple

TUG, OS... TOY TpaTTOMEevwY, eaipe-

Tws b€ THs c’Tatias, KaTdoKoTOS Tapé-
orat.—ld., ibid. |

o [mw@s 5€ civodov dvoudfew TOALG-
ow, hs kéuns mpoukdbnto, kal mapqy
OTEKOVAGTWwp* Kal KowevTaplos Huds ei-
onyey avtl Siakdvwv THs éxkAnolas ;
exeivos epbéeyyero, kal of mapdyTes eaid-
Twv, UGdAov Ge UTHKovoy TE KduNTL.. .«
€keivos ekeAevev, Hues OT OTpAaTIWTaV
jyéueba.—S. Athan. Apol. cont. Aria-
nos, Op., tom. i. p. 150, F; p. 131,

Jae

: [Id., ibid., § 86. p. 201, sqq. |

4 [Arium necquicquam apud Alex-
andriam commorantem venire facit, et
imperialibus edictis concilium denuo
Constantinopolim convocari. — Ruffi-
nus, Hist. Eccl., lib. i. c, 12, Opuscula,
p- 204. Par. 1580.]

* [Theodoret, c. 31. p. 64. Euseb.
Vit. Const., lib. iv. c. 43. Concilia, tom.
ii. col. 479, sqq. ]

168 Councils summoned by Constantius.

aprenix. of Jerusalem, it cannot be so much as doubted, but that it
“°**—was convened by the emperor’s command. But this great
and pious emperor died not long after the council held at

New Rome or Constantinople.

That his son Constantius did not only make use of the
same right with his father in summoning councils, but also
far transgressing the bounds of his lawful authority, did by
the ministers of his royal power convene very many synods
in favour of his Arians, is too evident from ecclesiastical
history. And those assemblies which by his authority met
at Antioch more than once, at Philippopolis, Jerusalem,
Sirmium, Nice in Thrace, Nice in Bithynia, and in other
places, are rightly called by the ancients parasynagmata’,
“unlawful meetings,’ not synods. Hence St. Athanasius‘,
St. Hilary", and the other writers of that age, so frequently
complain of the wicked attempts of Constantius (whom they
call Antichrist) in violating all the rights of the Church.
Yet the same authors do willingly own his princely autho-
rity in those lawful councils which were called by him. St.
Athanasius acknowledges, that the council of Sardica was
summoned cata tmpéctaév*, “by the command” of the most

Also the fathers
of the orthodox council of AriminumyY profess, that councils
are wont to be assembled xcerevoes, “ by the command” of
God, and mpoordypatz, “by the precept” of the emperor:
which also the fathers of the above-mentioned council of
Sardica’ signified in other words in their epistle, (Theodoret,
lib. ii, to be cited chap. viii.) Concerning the general
council appointed at Nice by Constantius’s letters, and
afterwards by others of his letters divided into the council
of western bishops at Ariminum, and that of eastern at
Seleucia, you may read in St. Athanasius, in a little treatise
written concerning those councils*. We have also shewn

pious emperors Constantius and Constans.

& [mapacuvayéyas.—S. Basil., Ca-
nones ad Amphilochium, i. in Epist.
elxxxviii. Op., tom. iii. pp. 268, D,
sqq |
t {S. Athan., Hist. Arian. ad Mon.,
§ 74. Op., tom. i. p. 388, E. vid. pas-
sim. |

* (S. Hilarii Pictav. ad Constantium
Augustum, lib. i. c. 1. Op., p. 1217,
sqq., et passim.—Antichristum preve-

nis,—Lib. contra Constantium Imp., ec.
7. p. 1242, C.]

x [S. Athan., Apol. cont. Arian., §
LOp:, toma. ip. 123.104]

y (Id. De Synodis, ib., p. 723, A.]

z [Theodoret. H. E., lib. ii. ¢. 8.
p. 74. ]

a [S. Athan. De Synodis, § 1. tom,
i./ps 7165, AS Bul

Minor councils summoned by the bishops.— Valentinian. 169

above, that Liberius bishop of Rome did with earnest en- casavpon

treaties desire a council of this very prince, though he was
both wicked and heretical. But those councils which were
held by Pope Julius in St. Athanasius’s cause, under the
reign of Constantius, since they were not general, did (as
was observed above) stand in no need of the express com-
mand of the prince. Therefore you will often find, that
metropolitans and patriarchs did by their own authority
hold episcopal assemblies in their respective dioceses. It
is certain that St. Athanasius alone convened many synods
at Alexandria, of the bishops of his jurisdiction. And that
an extraordinary right above others began even then to be
ascribed to the bishop of Rome, shall be shewn hereafter
in this very chapter. I will not lose my time in mention-
ing all the greater and lesser councils, which we read to
have been afterwards assembled within the compass of that
time, of which I am now treating: it will be sufficient to
haye hinted at the chief; from which it may appear to all
impartial readers as clear as the sun, that they do wonder-
fully impose upon the credulity of the common ignorant
people, who deny a fact that is so true and certain ®.

In the reign of Valentinian I.°, about the year of our Lord
365, there was a council of some note held at Lampsacus.
And Sozomen relates (lib. vi. cap. 7°) that Hypatianus [was]
sent [by] the bishops of Hellespontus and Bithynia to the
emperor, @oTe émitpaTnvat ovvedOeiv eri SiopO@cer Tod
doypatos, “that leave might be granted them to meet for
the reformation of the Christian faith:’ who brought back
from the emperor this answer 4, “It is not lawful indeed for
me, who am ranked among the laity, to enquire with too
much curiosity into those matters: but let the bishops, to
whose care those things belong, meet wherever they please
by themselves®.” In the Greek it is, éuol weta Naovd TeTay-
péve, “ for me who am seated with the laics.” The emperor
alludes to his place in the church, in which whereas before
the time of St. Ambrose the emperors sat within the par-

b [Concil. Semiarian., A.D. 364. ap. pp. 227.]

Concilia, tom. ii. p. 967. ] & [ euol pev, pn, meTa Aaov TeTAYMEVD
¢ The author writes Jovian by mis- od O€uis Toladra moAvmpaymovetv’ ol

take. 5& fepets ois ToTO meAel, Kal’ EavTovs
d [Sozom. Eccl. Hist., lib. vi. cap. 7. 6a BobAovrat cvvirwoov.—ld., ibid. |

HICKES. 7,

DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT. II.

170 The Councils of Constantinople and Rome were called

aprenvix. tition of the sacerdotal order, he first altered that custom,

NO. VI.

and appointed them a place apart indeed from the people,
but without the seats of the clergy, as Sozomen tells
us in the seventh book of his historyf. The emperor
therefore does not deny, as some falsely and ridiculously
assert, that the right of calling a council belongs to him:
but being made wise by the unhappy example of Constan-
tius, he says he will not vodu7paypoveiv, “too busily en-
quire” into matters of faith. But he manifestly exerts his
princely authority in the word cuvitwcar, “let them come”
to the council.

In the year 381, there was a general council held at
Constantinople, not so famous for the number, as for the
eminence of the bishops that were present. By whom
was it summoned? The bishops in their synodical letter
own themselves obliged for it only to the Emperor Theo-
dosius*; and all the historians that have mentioned that
council, agree with them herein. Yet Cardinal Baronius
argues out of his own head, that the praise of it ought to
be ascribed to Pope Damasus®: but that upon such weak
conjectures, that they do not deserve so much as to be re-
futed. Socrates relates', that it was decreed in this council,
“that the affairs of every province should be determined by
provincial synods:” and adds, as though it were a thing
necessary, that “that decree was confirmed by the sentence
of the emperor.”

Concerning the council of Rome the year following, let us
hear St. Jerome in his epistle to Eustochium*: “ When,” says
he, “the emperor’s letter had drawn together to Rome the
eastern and western bishops, by reason of some dissensions
among the Churches, he saw those admirable men, and
bishops of Christ, Paulinus bishop of the city of Antioch,

> / , oa ,
émapxtas ovvodes Siok" TovTos Kal 6
Bactarevs éyevero cuuwnodos.—Socrates,

f [Sozomen, lib. vii. c. 25. p. 317.
See above, vol. ii. pp. 344, 335. |

& [ouveAOdvtTes Kata Td ypauma THs
ons evoeBelas, x. T.A.—Canones Conc.
Constant. Concilia, tom. ii. col. 1123,
B, E.]

h (Placuisse in primis id Damaso
Romano pontifici, ipsumque de his
egisse apud Theodosium imperatorem,
jure opinari licet, &c.—Baronius An-
nal. Eccles., ann. 381. num. 19.]

' [dpicav Se bore ei ypela Karécor
7a Ka éexdorny érapylay iva 4% rhs

EES lib: vaiC-ades ps2 0 Lele me

k [Cum orientis et occidentis epi-
scopos ob quasdam ecclesiarum dis-
sensiones Romam imperiales litere
contraxissent; vidit admirabiles viros,
Christi pontifices, Paulinum, Antio-
chenz urbis episcopum; et Epipha-
nium, Salamine Cypri, que nune Con-
stantia dicitur.—S. Hieronymi Epist.
108. ad Eustochium, § 6. Op., tom. 1.
col. 687, D, E.]

by the emperor, not by the bishop of Rome. 171

and Epiphanius bishop of Salamina in Cyprus, which city
is now called Constantia.” From which words it appears,
that when a greater council was appointed to meet even at
Rome, it was done by the emperor’s letters, not by those of
the bishop of that see. And therefore the bishops of the
east, who were assembled at the same time at Constanti-
nople, writing to this Roman council, attest that themselves
were called to old Rome to that council, 61a tav tod Oeo-
gireotdatov Pacihéws ypaupator, “ by the letters of the most
pious emperor.” And if those with whom we have to do,
would allow as much authority as they ought to the un-
doubted monuments of true antiquity, this epistle alone
would be sufficient to prove what I here contend for. For
that the bishops of the east were invited to the council of
Rome, they themselves interpret it only as an office of
mutual charity and Christian love, and return their thanks
to them upon that account: but do not understand it to
imply any subjection in them, or dominion in others; for
they behave themselves towards the western bishops no
otherwise than as brethren, as ministers of equal rank in
the same family, and equally subject to the civil powers.
Where therefore is the temporal monarchy, which some
mad priests do now dream of, and bring into the Church
of God! ?

In the year 399, Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria con-
demns the errors of Origen in a synod called by himself™.
The year following St. John Chrysostom patriarch of Con-
stantinople convenes the council of Ephesus", and to restore
the decayed discipline of the Church deposes twelve or (as
Sozomen writes”) thirteen bishops of his jurisdiction from
their sees. Both these patriarchs raised themselves great
troubles and much hatred by these proceedings; and yet
among those that found fault with them, there was not one
who charged them with usurping an authority due to an-
other. And that they had no need of the express command
of the prince, has been often observed above: which also is the
undoubted reason, why in so many lesser and greater coun-

1 [huas as oixeia weAn mpooerade- m [{Ibid., col. 1459. ]
cage 61a THY K.T.A.—Epistola Episco- " (Ibid., col. 1465. Socrat., Hist,

porum, Damaso, &c. Cone. Constant. Lcecl., lib. vi. cap. 10. p. 333. |
Concilia, tom. ii. col. 1146, D.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT, II.

172 Many other councils, particularly the third general

Aprenvix. Cils, which at this time were assembled by the metropolitans

NO. VI.

condemned the heresy of Nestorius.

and primates of Africa, at Carthage, or in other provinces of
their comprovincial bishops, for the most part there is nothing
said of the command or permission of the prince. That the

synod which deposed St. John Chrysostom was called by the

royal 7pooraypare, “command,” we are assured by Sozomen?®.

‘When St. Chrysostom had appealed from this synod to a

general council, which was the only remedy for the injury
that he had received (as Pope Innocent writes to the clergy
of Constantinople?) there was a great deal of pains taken both
by Innocent, and by all the Roman synod, convened for that

‘purpose, that by the mediation of Honorius emperor of the
west, they might obtain of Arcadius, who then governed in

the east, right and leave to call a general council. Palladius

bishop of Helenopolis, in his history of the life of St. Chrys-

ostom, says4, “‘ The bishops of Italy being assembled, beseech
the emperor that he would write to his brother Arcadius, to
command a council to be convened [in Thessalonica], that
both parts of the east and west might the more easily meet
together.” Sozomen at the end of his eighth book tells us’,
“that Innocent bishop of Rome desiring that St. John Chrys-
ostom should be recalled, sent to the emperors Honorius and
Arcadius legates, ovvodov aiticovtas, Kal Katpov TavTns, Kal
Torrov, ‘‘desiring he would appoint a synod, and the time and
place for it.” Afterwards a contention arising concerning
the priesthood of the eternal citys between the anti-popes
Boniface and Eulalius, A.D. 319, it appears that in a short
time many councils were called by the Emperor Honorius.
In the year 430 the ‘general council of Ephesus met, which
It is certain that in
that council, and in all the business of it, great deference
was paid to Celestine bishop of Rome. Yet Celestine did
not call that council, but the emperors Theodosius and Valen-

P [Ibid., c. 26. p. 361. ]

4 [of rwes emickoro: THs “ITaAlas
cuvaxbevres, mapakaAover Tov BaucirEa
ypdyat TH Eavtod adeAP@ Kal cuuBa-
ote “Apkadlw, mpoordtat év Ocacado-
vikn yeverOa civodov, dare SuvnbAva
eikdrdws Gupdrepa cuvdpapeiv Ta pépn
avaroAns te Kat dSticews.—Pallad. de

vit. S. Joan. Chrys. ap. S. Chrys. Op.,
tom. xiii. p. 12, B.]

r [ Ivvonévtuos 5€ 6 “Péuns ericxomos,
émaveAGeiy autoy Grovodcwy ... Téro--
dev emiokdrous TEVTE, Kal mpeaButepous
dvo .. . mpds ‘Oveplov kal "Apkadioy ov-
vodov aithoovras, k.T.A.—Sozom. Eccl.
Hist., lib. viii. c. 28. p. 363. |

Ss Rome commonly so called.

council of Ephesus, were called by the emperors. 173

tinian. There are extant the circular letterst of those empe-
rors sent to the metropolitans, in which they are commanded,
laying aside all excuse, to repair to Ephesus against a day
appointed: therefore when the fathers were come together,
Juvenalis bishop of Jerusalem does before all other things
require" that the emperor’s command should be recited in the
hearing of all, which accordingly was immediately done. I
will not produce out of the acts of that council the words of
the fathers, by which in many places they expressly acknow-
ledge that they were assembled in that place by the mercy
of God, and vedmare cai éx Ocotmricpatos, “by the intimation
and command of the emperors.” I will only set down Celes-
tine’s words in his Epistle to Theodosius*: “ On this heavenly
eare and glory every one of us as far as we are able, accord-
ing to our sacerdotal office, employ our pains, and at this
council, which you have commanded, we afford our presence
in the proxies we have sent.” And afterwards’: “ This we
humbly request of your piety, which we believe you also de-
sire, that what you ask of God, you may perform yourself for
His sake in the faith ;” that is, that as you ask of God for
yourself a firm and unshaken empire, so you may procure by
your royal authority, that the true faith may remain un-
shaken. So also St. Cyril, writing concerning the same
Nestorius to Juvenalis bishop of Jerusalem, says’, “ that the
emperors were to be earnestly entreated yapucacOac 7H
oikoupévyn TO BERavov eis lati opOyv, to grant the world a
true and unshaken faith.” I omit the council held in the
cause of Pope Sixtus at Rome in the atrium of Sessorius’
palace by command of the Emperor Valentinian in the year
4334, For neither can it be called a council, having been
an assembly of presbyters and senators mixed together, which

® {Ibid., Actio i. col. 1000, A. ]

x [Huic ceelesti cure vel gloriz
unusquisque nostrim pro sacerdotali
officio operam nostram, in quantum
valemus,impendimus; et huic synodo,
quam esse jussistis, nostram prsen-
tiam in his, quos misimus, exhibemus.
—Ibid., Actio ii. sub. fin. col. 1149,
D.)
y [Hoc a pietate vestra suppliciter

deposcimus, quod vos habere credimus
in votis; ut quod a Deo petitis, hoe in
fide ipsius causa prestetis.—Ibid., col.
1150, D.]

* (Set 5& juas avaryKalws Kal TH pido-
xplorw Kal evoeBeotarw Baoirel kar
dmact Tots €vy TeACL paar Kal cvuBov-
Actoa... xaploacbar TH oikovpévn Td
BéBouov eis wiotw opbqv.—Ibid., pars
i. c. 24. col. 937, A, B.]

* {Cone. Rom. ec. 5, sqq. apud Con-
cilia, tom. iv. col. 509. D, E, sqq. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,
CHAP. III.

SECT. IL.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

1 i( patri-
cian” ]

*( “30 far as
the Lord’’]

174 The emperor sometimes present in councils.

sort of meetings came to be very frequently used afterwards,
as I shall observe elsewhere.

In the year 448, by the command of Theodosius the
Younger, a general council met at Constantinople, which
condemned Eutyches. Theodosius in his letters to the coun-
cil writes thus: “ Because we know that the most magni-
ficent Patricius! Florentius is faithful, and has good testi-
monies of his orthodox faith, it is our pleasure that he be
present at the holding of the council.” Also Nicholas the
First, writing to the Emperor Michael says®*, that the empe-
ror has no right to be present in ecclesiastical assemblies,
“except where there is any debate concerning the faith.”

Of the council called at Ephesus the year following by the
same prince, Liberatus Diaconus speaks thus‘: ‘‘The emperor
directing his sacred Epistle to Dioscorus at Alexandria, com-
manded him to choose ten metropolitan bishops whom he
would, and come to Ephesus ; and a council being convened,
to discuss Eutyches’s cause, himself commanding Barsumas
the abbot to be present.” The holy imperial letter itself is
extant in the Acts of the council®: if yet that name ought to
be given to that infamous band of robbers, in which impious
Eutyches was absolved, and Flavianus, patriarch of Constan-
tinople, a pious man, was condemned as a wicked person.
Pope Leo being called to this council by the emperor, among
other things writes back to him thus‘: “Although the cause
of the faith is so evident, that for very good reasons a council
should not have been called; yet inasmuch as my Lord’ does

> [eéme:dy Se ofSauev Thy meyadompe-
TETTATOY TaTpikioy PAwpevTioy bvTa Ti-
oTby, Kat meuaptupnucvoy em) tH dp0o-
THTL, O€hoMEY GuvEivaL avTdY TH aKpod-
get THS Tvvddov, ered) Adyos tep) mi-
otews eotiv.—Cone. Constant. Act. vii.
lect. in Concil. Chaleed. Concilia, tom.
iv. col. 1005, C.]

¢ [Dicite, quaesumus, utinam le-
gistis imperatores antecessores vestros
in synodalibus conventibus interfuisse ?
nisi forsitan in quibus de fide tracta-
tum est, &c.—Nicolai Pap. I. Epist.
viii, ad Michaelem Imp. ap. Concil.,
tom. ix. col. 1330, B.]

“ [Annuit imperator et dirigens sa-
eram Dioscoro in Alexandriam, pre-
cepit, ut cum decem metropolitanis
episcopis, alios quos voluisset, ipse

eligeret, et veniret Ephesum; et con-
gregato universali concilio, Eutychetis
causam discuteret; jubens Barsumam
archimandritam interesse concilio, &e.
—Liberati Diaconi Breviarium, ec. 12.
Bibl. Patr., tom. xii. p. 140, B, C.]

e [Concil. Chalcedon., Actio prima.
Concilia, tom. iv. ad Dioscorum, col.
870, sqq., ad Barsumam, col. 877, B. |

f [Cum tam evidens fidei caussa sit,
ut rationabilius ab indicenda synodo
fuisset abstinendum: tamen in quan-
tum Dominus juvare dignatur, meum
studium commodavi, ut clementiz ves-
tre statutis aliquatenus pareatur.—
S. Leonis M. Epist. xxxvii. ad Theodo-
sium, Op., tom. i. col. 887, et ap. Con-
cilia (Concil. Chalced., pars i. Ep. xvi.)
tom. iv. col. 802, B.]

St. Leo requested Marcian to call a council. 175

vouchsafe His assistance, I have contributed my endeavour,
that obedience may in some measure be paid to your cle-
mency’s laws.” Wise and holy, as the event shewed, was
the resolution of Leo, who had no mind that this council
should be called: but when by dissuading the emperor from
it, he had discharged the duty of a pious pastor, he laid aside
all excuses, and obeyed his prince’s command to the utmost
of his power. So ignorant of the rights of the present
liberty were the Roman bishops of those times. And there
are many things of like nature in Leo’s Epistles: as when
he writes thus to Theodosius, desiring a general council may
be convened in Italy®. ‘“ All the Churches of our parts, all
the bishops beseech your lenity with sighs and tears, that you
would command a general council to be held in Italy.” And
in his Epistle to the clergy and people of Constantinople, he
says": “ Because it behoves you, under! the divine assistance,
to promote” the favour of Catholic princes, . . . that the most
gracious emperor may vouchsafe to grant our petition, in
which we beseech him that a full council may be sum-
moned.” What need many words? It appears from the
Epistle of the Empress Pulcheria to Leo', that the emperor
Marcian yielded up to Leo almost all his right of calling this
general council: for thus Pulcheria writes ; ‘“ Your reverence
will vouchsafe to signify whatever way you shall provide,
that all the bishops of * the whole east [and] of Thrace and
Illyricum (as it is also the pleasure of our lord, the most
pious emperor, my husband) may be able to meet speedily

& [mavTwy TOY wEepOy NuoY ai exKAN-
cla: macau THs tueTepas pidavOpwrias
KaradéeovTa dia Tov emioKdtwy, ered)
Kal of NMUETEpoL TLTT@s avTEipHKact, Kal
autos éxeivois PAaviavos 6 emiockoTos
AlBeAAov exkAHToy émidedwke, yevixny
cuvodov KeAcvoate ev TH ITaAla ouveA-
Getv.—S. Leonis M. Epist. xliv. ad
Theodosium, Op., tom. i. col. 916, et
ap. Concilia, ibid. (Ep. xix.) tom. iv.
col. 805, B. |

5 fQuoniam oportet vos post divinum
auxilium, etiam catholicorum princi-
pum gratiam promereri, humiliter ac
sapienter exposcite, ut petitioni nostra,
qua plenariam indici synodum pos-
tulavimus, clementissimus imperator
dignetur annuere.—S. Leonis M. Epist.
lix. (ad Cler. et Pleb. Constant. urbis,)

Op., tom. i. col. 981, et apud Concilia,
ibid., (Epist. xxiii.) col. 818, B.]

i [7 oh ebAdBeia, Kal dy by paveln
Tpdrov, onudvar karakiooe iva mayTes,
kal mdons THs avaroAns of éemloKo7ot,
Opanns Te, Kal "IAAvpiKod, Kabws Kal TP
huerépw deomdtn TE edoeBeatatw Bact-
Ae? TH CuG TuCdyw@ apéoret, cis ulav 1é-
Aw Thy tuxloTny amd TOY avaToAtK@v
Mepay maparyevwrrar KaKEloe Yevouerns
auvddov wep) Te THS KaoALKTS 6uoAO-
ylas, kal wep Tro’twy Tav emoKdrwr,
of Tes mpd ToUTOU exwplaOnaay, Kabcs
h mloris, Kal ) xpioTiaviK) evoeBera
Grater, cov avdeytovyTos bpiawow.—
Epist. lxxvii. Pulcheriae Aug. apud
S. Leonis Op., tom. i. col. 1029, 1030;
et apud Concilia, ibid. (Epist. xxxv.)
col. 836, D.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.
SECT. II.

1(“next
to”]

3 [even
of,” ed. 3.)

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

176

St. Leo acknowledged the emperor’s authority.

from the eastern parts in one city, and there in a holy
council by your direction determine according as Christian
faith and piety shall require, both concerning the Catholic
confession, and those bishops who were formerly excommuni-
cated.” Yet Leo kept to the old customs, and leaving the
authority of .calling a council to the prince, in whose power
he observes the ro «ipos, the authority of the state and
supreme government is, he thought it his duty only to
suggest those things which he accounted necessary. Thus
therefore he afterwards wrote in those letters which he sent
to the emperor*: “ From whence by a legate, who God willing
shall immediately be with your clemency, whatsoever I think
appertains to the advantage of the cause may be more fully
and opportunely suggested to you, who are pleased to have
so pious a concern for calling a council.”” See therefore the
custom of the Church still in those times. The bishop of
Rome adviseth, the emperor summons the council. There-
fore in the emperor’s letters, by which the bishops are
called to this fourth general council, it is thus written’:
““ Because some doubts have been moved concerning the true
faith, as is signified by the letters of Leo the most holy
archbishop of Rome, as well as the greatest blessing to that
see: it was our pleasure, that a holy council should imme-
diately be assembled in Nice, a city of Bithynia.”

Afterwards by the command of the emperors the fathers of
this council removed to Chalcedon, where a council was held
in the year of our Lord 451, very memorable for the dis-
turbances that followed on that occasion, which for a very
long time divided the eastern Church from the western. To
Marcian the Emperor Leo succeeded ; of whom when ill de-
signing men earnestly desired another general council, and
he was not very averse to it, Pope Leo by letters of great
modesty as well as prudence, hindered him from giving his

k [Unde piissimz sollicitudini ves-
trae, quam de indicenda synodo habere
dignamini, per legationem, que con-
festim ad clementiam vestram, Deo
annuente, perveniet, quidquid ad caussz
utilitatem arbitror pertinere, plenius
atque opportunius suggeretur. — S.
Leonis M. Epist. Ixxxii. ad Marcia-
num, Op., tom. i. col. 1045. ]

! [ ered} rulvur dppiBorlat tives mepl

Thy opboddtay Opnoketay Huady yeyeri-
o8at Soxodon, Kabaarep Kal 7 emieTOA? TOD
OcopiAcotatou émikdmov THs evddéou
méAews “Péuns A€ovtos Sndot, TovTo
idiK@s TH HueTepa hpecey nucpotynTe iva
ayla cbvodos év Nikaéwy méAci THS Bibv-
vav eérapxlas ovyKpoTnén. — Concil.
Chalced. pars i. Epist. xxxvii. ap. Con-
cilia, tom. iv. col. 840, A. ]

The barbarian conquerors exercised the same powers. 177

consent : “I received,” says he™, “ with veneration, your cle-
mency’s letters, full of the power of faith, and of the light
of truth, which I was desirous to obey; but I suppose that
will please you more, which reason shewed us should be
chosen.” Then he brings reasons why a new council is not
necessary. Indeed it is plain, that from this time even pro-
vincial councils were less frequently celebrated in the east,
and no general one for above a hundred years: for

The fifth general council met in the year 553, the seat of
that council was Constantinople. They who persuaded the
calling of it were Vigilius, bishop of Rome, who was then
at Constantinople, and Menas, patriarch of Constantinople.
The author and commander of it was the Emperor Justinian.
Therefore the fathers, when they address themselves to him,
use that form accustomed on the like occasion, professing
themselves to be convened, cata Oeiov veda, “by the will
and pleasure of God;” but cata Oéamricpma, “ by the decree
of the emperor ".”

Hitherto we have mentioned only those councils which
were called by the authority of the Roman emperors: but
what method was observed in summoning councils under the
dominion of other princes, and what custom obtained, shall
be clearly explained in the following chapters. But because
the empire of the Romans was already much decayed in those
times whereof we speak, not only in many provinces, but
even the capital city, formerly mistress of the world, was for
some time in the hands of barbarous nations, we will add
something concerning that matter also in this place ; for it
manifestly appears that those kings and princes who suc-
ceeded in the place of the Roman emperors, did, together
with the holy rites of the Christian religion, also take upon
them the right of protecting the Church, and preserving
ecclesiastical discipline. Therefore these also each in his

m (Litteras clementie tue plenas

(Concil. Chalced., pars iii. e. 25,) tom.
virtute fidei et lumine veritatis vene-

vi. col. 1849, B.]

ranter accepi: quibus cuperem, etiam
in eo, quod prwsentiam meam pietas
vestra necessariam existimat, obedire,
ut majorem fructum conspectu vestri
splendoris assequerer. Sed magis id
vobis arbitror placiturum, quod eli-
gendum ratio demonstravit.—S, Leonis
M. Epist. elvi. ad Leonem Augustum,
Op., tom. i. col, 1321. et apud Concilia,

_HICKES, _ meer. ;

" [The document referred to here
and p. 189, seems to be the Adyos mpoa-
gwyytrikds of the council of Constan~
tinople under Justinian Rhinotmetus,
A.D. 692, called Quinisext; which
Casaubon has confounded with the
fifth general council under the first
Justinian.—Concilia, tom. vii. col.
1336, C.] -

tA Oe x ya shied Belden

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, II,
SECT. II.

APPENDIX.

NO, VI.

178 Councils summoned by the kings of the Franks,

respective dominion did, as much as the Roman emperors,
most deservedly challenge to themselves a right of summon-
ing councils, and confirming them by virtue of their autho-
rity; and that, as was now said, as soon as they had sub-
mitted their sceptres to Christ the King of kings. Of all the
kingdoms which had their rise from the ruins of the Roman
empire, the most ancient, the most noble, and the most
Christian is that of France. And the first Christian king of
France was Clovis the fifth from Faramond their first king.
He, not long after he had embraced the Christian religion,
gave his successors an example of summoning councils.
Hinemarus, in the life of St. Remigius, makes mention of
the council of Orleans, convened by his command about the
year 507: “ By the advice of St. Remigius® he assembled a
synod of bishops in the city of Orleans, in which assembly
many useful things were appointed.” The acts of the synod
sent to the king begin thus’: “To their lord, the son of the
Catholic Church, Clovis the most renowned king. All the
priests whom you commanded to come to the council,” &c.
Of the council of Lyons convened in the cause of the bishops
Salonius and Sagittarius, Gregory of Tours in his fifth book
says%, “ Which when King Guntheramnus had found, he
commanded a synod to be assembled at the city of Lyons.”
Soon after he mentions that of Chalons": “In the fourth year
of Childebert, which was the eighteenth year of the kings
Guntheramnus and Chilperic, a council met at the city of
Chalons, by the command of the Prince Guntheramnus.”
The same author, in his eighth book, speaks of the council
of Mascon’: “In the mean time the day of the edict came,
and the bishops by the king’s command met in the city of
Mascon.” And of the second council of Orleans*, held under

° [Per consilium beati Remigii in
Aureliansi civitate episcoporum syno-
dum convocavit; in quo conventu
multa utilia constituta fuere. (Louis
vot Clovis is the king here spoken of.)
—Hinemarus de 8S. Remigio, ap. Vitas
Sanctorum a Lipomano ed. Surius;
Jan. 18. p. 94 Venet. 1581; et ap.
Bolland. Oct. 1.]

P (Domino suo, Catholice Ecclesize
filio, Clodoveo, clarissimo regi. Omnes
sacerdotes, quos ad concilium venire
jussistis, &c. — Concilii Aurelianensis I.
(A.D. 511,) Epistola; ap. Concilia,
tom. v. col. 543, C.]

a [Quod cum rex Guntheramnus

comperisset, congregari synodum apud
urbem Lugdunensem jussit.—S. Gre-
gorii Turonensis Hist. Francorum, lib.
V. c. 421. col. 23), 0232.) Op.) earns,
1699. }

t [Anno quarto Childeberti, qui fuit
decimus octavus Guntheramni et Chil-
perici regum, apud Cabillunum civi-
tatem synodus acta est, ex jussu prin-
cipis Guntheramni.—Id., ibid, ¢. 28.
col. 238, A.]

‘ [Interim dies placiti advenit; et
episcopi ex jussu regis apud Matis-
censem urbem collecti sunt.—Id., ibid.,
lib. viii. c. 20. col. 392, C.]

t [Quum ex preceptione - glorio-

and by the Gothie kings of Spain. 179
Childebert, “‘ When by the precept of the most glorious kings
the holy fathers by God’s help, convened in the city of
Orleans, to treat concerning the observance of the Catholic
law.” And the same is professed by other fathers of other
councils which met in those days, either in that city or else-
where. In like manner Sigismund king of Burgundy, as
soon as he became a member of the Church of God", com-
manded a synod to be assembled at the city of Pau*.

I must not omit a most noble example with which the
histories of Spain furnish us. The Goths, when they invaded
that country, had brought the poison of Arius into those
parts. It happened by the mercy of Christ, that about the
year 589 the greatest of their princes, King Reccared, em-
bracing the Christian religion, undertook to reform the con-
fession of faith, and the whole ecclesiastical discipline through-
out his kingdom. Do the bishops therefore meet on their
own accord upon a matter of so great importance? Or do
they expect letters of citation to be sent them from Rome?
They do neither, but the king commands them, and they
cheerfully obey and hasten together. The king himself tells
‘us this, who addressing himself to them after the usual man-
ner, says’, “‘ And therefore, venerable fathers, we have com-
manded you to assemble for the holding of this synod.” The
fathers themselves say the same?: “ Seeing the most glorious
prince, according to the sincerity of his faith, had commanded
all the prelates of his kingdom to meet together.” This is
that most famous third council of Toledo. And we have a
like profession at the beginning of the fourth council of that
city?: “Seeing that we the Lord’s bishops were met together
in the city of Toledo, by the prince’s order and command,
to treat about certain matters of discipline relating to the

sissimorum regum in Aurelianensem

7 [Quum pro fidei sue sinceritate
urbem de observatione legis Catholice

gloriosissimus princeps omnes sui re-

tractaturi, Deco auxiliante, sancti patres
couvenerint.—Concil. Aurelianense II.
(A.D. 533,) Canon. Preefat. ; ap. Con-
cilia, tom. v. col. 926, C.]

" Ecclesie Dei ovis.

* [Concilium Epaonense, A.D. 517,
ap. Concilia, tom. v. col. 707, D.]j

y [Et ideo, venerandi patres, ad
hance vos peragendam congregari jussi-
mus synodum.—Cone. Toletanum IIT.
(A.D. 589.) Pref.; Concilia, tom, vi.
col. 694, B.]

giminis pontifices in unum convenire
mandasset.—Ibid., col. 693, B.]

* {Dum studio amoris Christi ac
diligentia Sisenande regis, Hispanize
atque Galliz sacerdotes apud Toleta-
nam urbem in nomine Domini conve-
nissemus ut ejus imperiis, atque jussis
communis, a nobis agitaretur de qui-
busdam ecclesie disciplinis tractatus,
&c.—Cone. Toletanum IV. (A.D. 633.)
Pref. ibid., col. 1448, E.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT. If,

180 Permission to hold councils asked of heretical kings.

arrenprx. Church.’ But what pains does the most famous author of the
xo Y' Ecclesiastical Annals take, speaking of the third council of
Toledo, to prove that the pope’s authority intervened in the
affairs of that council? Therefore this most learned author,
like the old wife to the wine bottle, as the Latin proverb is”,
betakes himself to his usual artifice. He says that Leander
bishop of Seville, legate of the see of Rome, did in that council
transact all things with absolute authority *% Indeed Leander
was present at that council, but as metropolitan of the pro-
vince of Beetica, not as the pope’s legate, as appears from
the order observed in the Subscriptions*: for Massonas bishop
of Merida being possessed of the first place, and Euphenius
bishop of Toledo of the second, Leander is here set down as
low as the third: which I know Baronius would not endure in
a legate of the Roman see. Add to this, that concerning that
legatine power nothing is said in all the councils, neither by
the king nor by the fathers, nor so much as by Leander him-
self, when in the beginning of that council he made a speech,
in which he gives God thanks for the conversion of the king
and kingdom to the faith®: nor does Isidore say any thing
of it in his Chronicle, or in the Life of Leander‘.

Besides, the orthodox fathers were used to beg leave to
assemble councils, even of the Arian kings. The council of
Agde met about the year of our Lord 506. The acts of it
begin thus®: “ Seeing that in the name of God, and by the
permission of King Alaric, a holy council was assembled in
the city of Agde.” Now Alaric was an Arian king, as were
almost all the barbarous nations" at that time, who infested
France, Italy, Africa, and Spain. And Theodoric king of
Italy was an Arian, whose authority in matters ecclesiastical

> Ut anus ad armillum. ¢ [Homilia S. Leandri, (the speech

© [Non sine scientia atque consensu
simulque auctoritate Pelagii pape
generale hoc celebratum esse conci-
lium, ex eo intelligi potest, dum Lucas
Tudensis ait, S. Leandrum huic inter-
fuisse et prefuisse legatione functum
pro Romano pontifice, quod absque
controversia credi debet, cum certum
sit, &c.—Baronii Annales, ann. 589,
num. 9. |

« [Cone. Tolet. III. Subscriptiones,
ap. Concilia, tom. vi. col. 712, D, E;
see Baronius, ibid., num. 44. ]

was made after the council.) Ibid.,
col. 715, sqq.

t [See S. Isidor. Hisp. Chronicon,
§ 118, Op., tom. vii. p. 104; Hist.
Gothorum, § 53. ibid., pp. 124, 125;
De Viris I[llustribus, § 57—59. S. Le-
ander, ibid., pp. 160, 161. ]

£ [Quum in Dei nomine ex per-
missu regis (Alarici) in Agathensem
civitatem sancta synodus convenisset.
—Concil. Agathensis A.D. 506. Canon.
Pref. ap. Concilia, tom. y. col. 521 C.J

h Goths, Vandals, &c. _

The decrees of councils were confirmed by the emperors. 181

was nevertheless owned by the bishops of Rome, who were
subject to him. When therefore during his reign the fourth
schism arose in Rome, between the anti-popes Symmachus
and Laurentius, a cure for this evil was implored from the
authority of the prince, though an Arian. “A contention
arising,” says Anastasiusi, “the fathers appointed that both
parties should go to Ravenna, to be judged by King Theodo-
ric: and when they were both entered imto that city they
found this to be a judgment of equity.” And afterwards the
dissension being renewed, Theodoric to compose the dis-
orders, did more than once call together the suburbicary
bishops, that they might either renew the trial by the autho-
rity of a synod, or without a new trial transact the matter,
and restore peace and quiet to the city. The king in his
epistle to the bishops (which has this inscription, ‘ The royal
precept,”) says*, “‘ Because we do not think it our duty to
determine any thing in ecclesiastical matters, therefore we
have caused you to be called together out of divers pro-
vinces.” But concerning councils held in this cause I shall
say more hereafter in this chapter.

III. The councils of the ancient Church of these times were
confirmed by the emperor and not by the pope of Rome.

How the canons of councils stood in need also of the
' prince’s authority, has been explained in the last chapter.
There we distinguished the royal authority, by which they
have the force of laws in the State, from the episcopal] and
divine, by which they are of force in the Church, and upon
the consciences of good men. But the court of conscience is
different from the civil court: nor can such as transgress the
canons of councils be punished with the penalties of civil laws,
before the prince has given the force of laws to them. They
who pretend that the decrees of councils do now stand in no
need of confirmation from the prince, and that the establish-
ment of the Church, which they received from the bishop

Hist. Byzant. Script., p. 31. ed. Paris. |

i [Facta contentione hoc constitue-
k [Quia non nostrum judicamus, de

runt patres, ut ambo ad Ravennam

pergerent ad judicium regis Theo-
dorici; qui dum ambo introissent in
Ravennam, hoc judicium #quitatis in-
venerunt.—Anastasius Bibliothec. Vite
Pontificum, ec. 52. S. Symmachi; ap.

ecclesiasticis aliquid censere negotiis ;
ideo vos de diversis provinciis fecimus
evocare.—Preceptio Regis (Theuderici

A.D. 501.)- ap. Concilia, tom, v. col.

466, C.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. Ill.

SECT, II.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

182. Baronius maintained that they must be confirmed

of Rome, is abundantly sufficient ; are either ignorant, what
difference there is between the Church and the State, or
(which I rather believe) they design by it, that the Church
and the State over all the world being blended into one,
may as well in spiritual matters as in temporal, acknowledge
only one supreme monarch, the Roman pontiff, according as
they do in Rome and in all St. Peter’s patrimony. There
indeed, I will own, ecclesiastical decrees have their sanction
only from the pope; but then it is as he is now considered
under two very different capacities, of a priest and of a
prince. In France, Spain, and wherever these powers are
separated, which are different in their own nature, the case
is quite otherwise; which manifest reason and the practice
of all times demonstrates, as was observed above. Besides,
confirmation by the prince is wont to be made many ways:
either not expressly, when by giving leave to meet in a
council, the prince is understood to approve also of the
decrees of the council, as in lesser councils is usually done: or
expressly, suppose by edict, or letters writ to that purpose, or
by the bare subscription of the prince. Examples of all these
kinds are frequent in the Acts of the councils. Many coun-
cils, both Greek and Latin, are found subscribed by the empe-
rors: but that all the general councils were confirmed by the
emperors’ letters or edicts, shall presently be made appear.
But this does not please Cardinal Baronius, who treating
of the council of Nice, will have the confirmation of that to
have been made, not by the emperor, but by the pope.
First' he produces a passage out of the Acts of Sylvester, in
which that is so expressly affirmed, that nothing can be
more express, if yet that may be said of so barbarous and
worthless a writer. Next he adds the testimony of Pope
Felix III.™, and that also most evident. At last he brings
a canon of the ancient Church®, to prove that this custom
was always observed in the Church, and that inviolably, as
he pretends. As to the Acts of Silvester, I will say nothing
more now, but that Cardinal Baronius himself does in so
many places ingenuously confess®, that they are false and full
of fables, lies, and the most absurd trifles, that it is rather

? [Baronii Annales, ann. 325, num. m {Baronius, ibid. ]
171. See Biniinotas in edictum Con- n [Ibid., num. 172, ]
stantini, A.D. 324, ap. Concilia, tom. i. ° (Id., ibid., ann. 315. num. 1.0, 15,
col, 1573, D.] eqq:]

by the pope. His arguments examined. 183

incumbent upon so judicious a writer to give an account casavzox
why in a matter of this moment he brings so scandalous °.t)”
an evidence, than upon me to search for arguments to Gir im
destroy his credit. And indeed although there are many —~———
things very foolish in those spurious Acts, yet there is
nothing more so, than all that section which brings in the
Nicene fathers begging the confirmation of their decrees

from Sylvester’, where there is neither sincerity in the
words, nor truth in the sense of them. The Epistle of

Felix III. which is alleged, though it be reckoned among

his Epistles, yet is really not Felix’s, but the council’s, held

at Rome about the year 484. The fathers of that council

say’; “The three hundred and eighteen holy fathers as-
sembled at Nice, addressed themselves to the holy Roman
Church to confirm and authorize their proceedings; which
custom, by the grace of Christ, all successions down to our

age have observed.” To understand the right meaning of

these words, we must call to mind what was said above
concerning a twofold authority of synodical canons: for

both the prince confirms them by the sanction of the royal
authority, and the bishops, if present, by voting and assent-

ing; if absent, only by ratifying what is decreed. And it

was the constant custcm especially of greater councils, to

send synodical letters to the patriarchs and bishops of the

more considerable sees, to inform them what had been done

in the councils: and there are examples of this custom ex-

tant even in St. Cyprian’. Therefore the bishops who ad-
mitted the synodical decrees, and used their endeavour to

have them observed in their churches, were not without
reason said to give confirmation and authority to them,
although they who are present at the council are more pro-

perly said to confirm the canons when they decree them by

their suffrages. Take it which way you will, it is not with-

out some reason that this Roman council claimed that right

for their bishop Felix ; for even at that time the popes of

P [Synod. Nic. Epist. ad Silvestrum
P. (spuria) ap. Concilia, tom. ii. col.
9

4 [Trecenti decem et octo sancti
patres apud Nicwam congregati, con-
firmationem rerum atque auctoritatem
sanct2 Romane ecclesie detulerunt;

quain utramque usque ad etatem nos-
tram successiones omnes, Christi gra-
tia prestante, custodiunt.—Epist. Sy-
nodi Rom, (A.D. 484.) ap. Concilia,
tom. v. col. 248, D.]

* [See below, pp. 193, sqq. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

1(“ first,”
ed. 3. ]

184 That nothing be decreed rapa yveuny Tod ‘Popaiwy

Rome maintained that that right belonged to them, as shall
be shewn hereafter in this chapter. But what they say of
that right having been given to the see of Rome by the
fathers of this council is contrary to the testimony of all
history: therefore it is as difficult to imagine on what ground
this is affirmed, as why Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine
ascribe the right of appeals to the grant of the council of
Nice*; a right concerning which it is most evident the
Nicene fathers had not the least thought. But why Cardinal
Baronius, who interprets the words above mentioned, whether
of Felix or of the council, so as to infer from them that it
was not the custom for princes to confirm the canons of
councils, why he should ascribe to the pope, or to the fathers
of the Roman council, an opinion manifestly false, I leave
him to consider. This I know, and shall presently prove,
that there never was any council held under the emperors,
especially any general council, which they did not confirm
by their sanctions.

Nor does the canon alleged by the same author make any
more to his purpose. When Pope Julius saw the Arians,
who infested the Churches of Asia, Syria, and Egypt, con-
vene local synods, violate the rule of faith with new inven-
tions, and for that reason to have expelled Athanasius from
the see of Alexandria, he, in order to overthrow the impious
decrees of those synods, and give relief to the afflicted
Churches, denied that those were to be accounted lawful
assemblies, because he said there was an ancient law or
custom which forbade Churches to make any canon with-
out the knowledge and approbation of the bishop of Rome.
Sozomen, in his third book, expresses it thust: Eivau yap
VOMOV lepaTLKoY, Os aKUpa aTropaiver TA Tapa yvOunv TpaT-
Topeva TOV “Pwyaiwy érioxorov: “ For that there is a canon
extant relating to the rights of the priests, which pronounces
those things null which shall be done contrary to the opi-
nion, or without the knowledge and approbation of the
bishop of Rome.” Socrates", in his [second!] book, does more

s [See below, pp. 234, sqq.] u [rod éexkkAnoiacTiKod Kavdvos Ke-

* [The words in Sozomen are &s Actovtos K.7T.A.... Kavovitew rds ek-
uxvpa anopalvew x.t.A.—Sozom. Ec- «Anoias.—Socrates, Hist. Eccl., lib,
cles, Hist., lib. iii, c. 10. p. 105.) 21 clive. 6.3)

évickoTrov, an ecclesiastical rule; allowed and explained. 185

than once express it with little difference, thus: Kavovos
éxkAnovactiKod KedeVoVTOS, my Seivy Tapa THY YvoOunv Tod
éricxotrov “Paouns tas éxxrAnoias kavovifew: the meaning
of which words is, “that there is a canon of the Church
which enjoins that no Churches make canons without the
knowledge of.the bishop of Rome.” And indeed with good
reason: for since the bishop of Rome was both esteemed to
be, and really was the chief part’, and consequently the head
of the universal Church, which is but one, who can deny
that it is most just that without consulting him no innova-
tion should be made either in the faith or discipline of the
Church? But from thence to infer that therefore princes have
no right to confirm the canons of councils by their authority,
and procure them the force of laws in the state, I beseech
you what a consequence is this? Where is the force of this
argument? From whence is this conclusion? Does it fol-

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP, III.
SECT. IIt.

1 [pars po-
tissima. |

low because a parliament in France can enact nothing with- ©

out the president’s concurrence, that therefore the most
Christian king has no right to confirm its acts? Or be-
cause the auditors of the rota can decree nothing in the
absence of the president, that therefore the pope has no
right to give authority to the decrees of that court? Iapa
yvepunv in this canon signifies, “ without hearing the pope’s
opinion concerning it.” For though a general council might
determine any thing where the pope of Rome was of a dif-
ferent opinion, because as St. Jerome says*, “if the question
be about authority, that of the whole Christian world is
greater than that of Rome;” yet it could not determine
any thing without first hearing the opinion of the pope con-
cerning it from his legates: for which reason TheodoretY, in
his second book, chap. xxii., explains what is meant in this
canon by zapa yveunv, when among divers reasons alleged
by him why the council of Ariminum was unlawful, he also
produces this, that it wanted the assent of the pope of Rome,
ov Tpo TavT@V eer THY YyvoOpunv exdéEacPaL, “whose opi-
nion,” says he, “they should have waited for before that of
all others.” But I will now shew that the ancient Church

x Si auctoritas queritur, orbis major Op., tom. i. col. 1076, D.]
est urbe. [Casaubon has “ urbis,’’ Y [Theodoret, Eccles. Hist., lib. ii.
S. Hieron. Epist. 146, ad Evangelum, ec. 22. p. 103.)

HICKES, B b

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

186 The first two General Councils confirmed by the emperors ;

was of a different belief in this matter from that of Cardinal
Baronius, and of the advocates of this modern liberty of the
Church.

That the council of Nice was confirmed by Constantine’s
letters we are assured by Sozomen’*. ‘There were two prin-
cipal decrees of that council, the regulation of Easter day,
and the condemnation of Arius and his doctrine. Concern-
ing the former Constantine wrote to all the Churches that
circular letter which is set down by Eusebius?, Gelasius”, So-
zomen*, and others*. In that letter the emperor commands
the bishops of the Church to notify the decree of the Nicene
fathers concerning the celebration of Easter to all men, to
receive it, and to appoint the use of it in the Church. Con-
cerning Arius, the emperor sent all the Churches that edict®
which contains his condemnation, and denounced capital
punishment against all those who should not burn any of
Arius’s books that were brought to them.

The second general council was that of Constantinople,
which was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius. The
fathers of that council, after the conclusion of it, write to
the emperor, and after returning him thanks in a very
solemn manner for his great care of the true religion, they
add these words‘: ‘‘ We beseech your clemency that the sen-
tence of the council may be confirmed by your piety’s edict,
that as you have honoured the Church with your letters
by which you called us together, so you may by your seal
confirm the decrees which are at last made by our common
suffrages.” See how these holy fathers do not only acknow-
ledge the prince’s right to convene councils and confirm their
decrees, but also profess that it is an honour to the Church
for the emperor so to do. But Cardinal Baronius, whose
design it was from the beginning to infringe the rights of

z [Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., lib.i.c, 25. p. 34.]

pp. 42, 43. ] © [Socrates, ibid., p. 31. Gelasius,
a [Euseb. de Vita Const., lib. iii. ec. ibid., col. 269, D.]
17. ap. Hist. Eccl., tom, i. p. 586. ] f [Seducba toivuy THS OHS NuepoTNTOS

> [Gelasii Hist. Cone. Nic., lib. ii. ypduuati ths o7s evoeBelas emixupwO7-
ce. 36. ap. Concilia, tom, ii. col. 271,D, var ris cuvddouv rhv Whpov' iv’ Sorep

sqq. ] TOS THS KANTEWS Ypaupmace THY EKKAT-
¢ [The letter itself is not given in olay retiunkas, oftw Kat Tov SokavTwy
Sozomen. emioppaylons To TéAOS.—Epist. Synod,

4 ({Socrat. Hist. Eccl., lib. ic. 9. p. Concil. Constant. ad Theodosium, ap.
32. Theodoret, Hist. Ecel., lib. i. ec. 10. Concilia, tom. iii. col. 1123, C.]}

Photius states that the 2nd was confirmed by the Pope. 187

princes, and to bring in a monarchy of the Church upon casavzox
the State, when he was not able to impair the credit of this 40"
writing of the fathers, did not omit the only thing left him ¢iAP 1
to do, to endeavour by misrepresenting the fact to enervate
the emperor’s power; for he pretends that by begging this

with so much earnestness of Theodosius, the fathers meant
nothing more than by this means to engage the emperor to
persevere in the true faith. Besides he is pleased to assert

that this council was confirmed by Pope Damasus, and that

this is attested by Photius. Indeed I cannot but wonder

that he should appeal in this case to the evidence of Pho-

tius, a Greek, and whom, in other places of his Annals", he

calls a proud and an impious schismatic, and a most deadly

enemy to the Church of Rome. Who therefore can believe

that such a man has owned the monarchy of the Roman

see? The passage he cites out of Photius is in his little tract
concerning the seven general councils, where, after he has

by name set down the principal of the Nicene’ fathers, whom ![“Con-
he calls é£apyous, “ exarchs,” he adds these words': Ois od tan?)
ToNvs Xpovos Kai Aapacos 6 THs “Poyuns Ta avta Kpativev
éyvwpifeto avupwvos Tots mpodkaBovor Kabiotapevos : that is,

“to whom not long after it was known that Damasus,

bishop of Rome, did also confirm the same decrees, declar-

ing himself of the same opinion with the fathers above
named.” Photius speaks of the episcopal authority, the

virtue of which is all spiritual, and which was common to

the bishop of Rome with the other bishops; but we are
speaking here of that authority by which canons obtain the

force of laws im the state. Therefore how great an absur-

dity is it because Photius says that the pope of Rome did

by his episcopal authority confirm what had been decreed

by the fathers sitting in council, to make him for that

reason deny princes their right in the state? And is any

one ignorant that those words, xpativey, émixupody, Kat

® [Quod autem adeo studiose expos-
cunt statuta in synodo ab eo confir-
mari, atque sigillo muniri; id quidem
prudenter, quod eo modo sibi fidem
imperatoris duraturam oppignorarent ;
utpote qui experti essent Valentem
imperatorem in deterius esse mutatum.
Porro eandem synodum Constantino-
politanam confirmatam fuissea Damaso

papa Photius tradit in libello de sep-
tem synodis.x—Baronii Annales, ann.
381, n. 35. |

h [Id., ibid., ab ann. 853. num. 65,
ad ann. 879, passim. |

i [Photius de Synodis, Concilium IT.
ap. Biblioth. Jur. Can. Justelli, tom. ii.
p- 1148. Par. 1661. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

—

188 3rd and 4th General Councils confirmed by the emperor.

Kpatavovy, “to corroborate, authorize, and confirm,” are
used of a prince and of bishops in a different signification ?

Indeed the council of Constantinople, which met the next
year, writes in such a manner to the council of Rome’ con-
cerning its own decrees, as manifestly declares that their
authority did by no means depend upon the pope’s confirma-
tion: for having given a summary account of what had been
done in that council, and named some fathers whom the
council had made bishops in the most considerable sees, they
add these words: “ Seeing therefore these fathers have law-
fully and canonically obtained their sees at our hands, we
exhort your reverences that you would congratulate with
them on this behalf, as spiritual charity obliges you, and the
fear of the Lord, by which all human actions ought to be
regulated.”

The royal confirmation of the third general council is ex-
tant at the end of the Acts of that council*, together with
the emperor’s sentence pronounced against Nestorius, and
against his writings, which were condemned to the flames’.

The fourth general council held at Chalcedon was con-
firmed by the same Emperor Marcian by whom it was sum-
moned. ‘These are his words in his Epistle to Palladius, the
pretorian prefect™: ‘“ Let no clergyman, nor soldier, nor per-
son of any other condition for the future endeavour to treat
of the Christian faith before crowds of auditors gathered
together, seeking from hence an occasion of tumult and
treachery: for if any one shall endeavour to consider over
again, and publicly call in question those things which have
been once determined and rightly ordered, he does an injury

to the judgment of the most

i [ots ds évOdouws kal Kavovikds wap’
quty Kekparnkdot, kal Thy bweTepay ouy-
xalpew mapakadodwey evaAaBeray, THs
TVEVMATIKAS pEesLTEvoveNsS ayamns, Kal
Tov KupLakod pdBou Tacay wey KaTATTEA-
Aovtos avOpwrivny mpoomdderay.—E pist.
Episcop., Cone. Constant. I. Concilia,
tom. ii. col. 1150, D.]

k (Cone. Eph., A.D. 431. Pars iii.
c. 14. Concilia, tom. iii. col. 1578, B,C. ]
1 (Ibid., c. 45. col. 1730, B, sqq. |

m [undels ody KAnpikds, } yoov otpa-
Tevdpmevos, 7) you Erépas aipécews oiac-
dqwote, Tepl THIS TOY xXpioTLavav al-
orews, Snuoola cuvayouevwv bxAwY Kai

reverend council; since those

aKkpowuevwy, eis Td EMSs Siadeers Toel-
c0at TOAMATW, Tapaxas ek TovTOUV Kal
kakodokias mpopacets emivoay’ TH Kploe
yap UBpw mow? THs ayias cuvddov,
doris by TA Anak KpibevTa, Kal dpbas
tunrwbevta, maAW avakvAlew ék diadré-
tews, kal Snuoorevew pidoverkoin’ drére
Ta vov Tepl THS TOY Xpictiavay TiaTeEws
épicbevra kata Tas TOY TIN. SidackaAlas,
Kal TOY py. TUTwWOeVTA yiWdoKETaL’ ODE
yap eAAchpet TIMwpia KaTa TOV KaTappo-~
vouvtTwy Tov vduov.—Edictum Valen-
tiniani et Marciani, ap. Cone. Chalced.
part iii. c. 38. Concilia, tom. iv. col.

1781, B, C. See col. 1785, C.]

Appeals were made to greater councils or the emperor. 189

things which have been now by our command established casaunon
concerning the Christian faith by the bishops who assembled Eee
at Chalcedon, are known to have been determined according GiA¥ i"
to the apostolic explications and institutions of the three ~
hundred and eighteen holy fathers m the city of Nice, and
of the hundred and fifty in this royal city. For the despisers
of this law shall not fail of punishment.”

The fifth general council begged confirmation of its decrees
from the Emperor Justinian”: and indeed those holy fathers
address themselves to that prince in the same form, when
they beg this of him, in which the bishops of the second
general council applied themselves to the Emperor Theodosius
on the like occasion: so much did they approve of the
modesty of their predecessors, which we commended a little
above. And these are the general councils which fall in with
those times of which we are now speaking.

IV. There lay an appeal in those times from the sentences of
councils to a greater council or to the prince.

To set the truth in a clear light concerning the right of
appeals observed in the ancient Church, I shall not think
much to go something back towards the original of the
thing. You must know therefore that the ancient fathers did
so attend [to] the government of the several flocks peculiarly
committed to their charge, that they thought the care of the
universal flock did likewise in some measure belong to them :
for which reason St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and
other persons of the same dignity, did not confine their care
within the bounds of the particular Churches intrusted to
them, but through the fervour of their piety, and desire of
unity, extended it to the universal Church of God. St.
Chrysostom in his Encomium of St. Hustathius, bishop of
Antioch, shews this very plainly, writing thus®: “He was
perfectly well taught by the grace of the Spirit, that a

n [See above, p. 177, n.—Concilii
Quinisext. Adyos mpotpwrntikds, ap.
Concilia, tom. vii. col. 1340, C.]

° [kal yap jv mwemaidevpevos Kados
mapa THS TOU mvevuaTos xapiTos, OTL TOY
exkAnolas mpocoT@ra ovn exelyns wdvns
KhdeoOar Set THs mapa TOU mvedmaros
eyxepicbelans avTg, GAAG Kal mdons
THs KaTe Thy oikoupevny Ketwevns’ Kad

TavTa amd Tay icpav euavOavey cdyOr.
ei ‘yap Tas edxas ToretoOa Set, pnow,
brtp THs KadoAuHs exkAnolas THs ard
TEPUTWY EWS TEPATWY Tis oikoumerns,
TOAA@ paddAov Kal Thy mpdvoray imép
andons av’Ths eémidelkvucba BSe?, Kal
dpolws amacav KhndecOa, kab pwepyuvay
maoas.—S. Chrys, Hom. in S. Eusta-
thium, § 35. Op., tom. ii, p. 607, B. ]

190 ach bishop is bound to care for the whole Church ;

governor of the Church ought to take care not only of the

———— particular Church which is committed to him by the Spirit,

but also of the universal Church, which is dispersed over the
whole world: and this he learned from our holy prayers:
for if we must pray for the universal Church, which is ex-
tended from one end of the earth to the other, much more
ought we to look to the salvation of all, to take care in like
manner of all, and to be solicitous and concerned for all.”
There is a like encomium of St. Athanasius in a certain
epistle in St. Basil?: “It is sufficient,” says he, “ for most
of the other bishops, if each of them diligently take care of
that Church which properly belongs to him: this does not
satisfy you; but there lies upon you as great a care and
solicitude for all the Churches as for that which was pecu-
liarly committed to your charge by our common Lord.”
Therefore also he styles St. Athanasius’ copudjy T&v Odor,
“the head of the whole Church.” In another epistle he owns
the same father to be the universal physician of the diseases
of the Church. His words are’, Xé (atpov tay év Tats exKd7-
clats appwotnuatav 6 Kipios jpov éraptevoarto, “ Our Lord
has constituted thee the physician of the infirmities in the
Churches.” For which reason Gregory Nazianzen also writes
of St. Athanasius’, that he, when he was madebishop of

Alexandria, rictev@nvat Thy THs oiKoupevns Taons TpocTa-
clay, ‘was intrusted with the prefecture of ali the world.”
And the same father describes St. Cyprian and St. Atha-
nasius’ just as if they had been certain general bishops of
all the Churches: nor this only for that reason, because they
of whom we speak were bishops of the largest dioceses: for
though, as St. Augustine speaking of deacons observes", the
magnificence of the see did very much contribute to the pre-
rogative of dignity ; yet in those things which are proper to

[rev wey &AAwY Tots mAcloTols
etapkel, TO Kal” EauTdy ExacToy tepi-
oKoTeiv’ ool be, ovx ikavdy TovTO, GAN
7 MEpiuva oor Tacav TOY eKKANTIGY TO-
gait, bon kal Tijs iSiws Tapa Tod KoWwod
deordrov Huey eumiorevdelons erikertat.
—S. Basil, Epist. ]xix. (al. lil.) ad
Athanasium, Op., tom. iii. p. 161, D,

@ [Id., ibid., p. 162, A.]
* [Id., Epist. Ixxxii. ad Athanasium,

ibid., p. 175, B.]

s [Thy Tod Aaod mpocdplay miaTeveTa,
TavTov Se eimelv, THs oiKovMEevns Taons
emotaclav.—S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi.
§ 7. Op., tom. i. p. 389, D.]

' (Id., ibid., et Orat. xxiv. § 12.
ibid., p. 445, B.]

" [De jactantia Romanorum Levi-
tarum. — Pseudo-August. Questiones
ex utroque Testamento; ap. S. Aug.
Op., tom. iii. App. col. 92, G.]

as well as specially for his own diocese. 191

the episcopal office, they were reputed “to be of the same
merit and partakers of the same priesthood,” as St. Jerome
writes in his Epistle to Evagrius*. Nor does any thing more
seem to be meant by those bishops, of whom St. Athanasius ¥
in his second Apology" says that they paid the same honour 1 («Apology
to all bishops, and did not measure their esteem for them by ‘aay
the greatness of their sees.

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.,
CHAP, ITI,
SECT. ly.

Therefore the bishops of the
lesser cities, as well as the metropolitans, judged that expres-
sion to belong to them which is read in the sixth book and
fourteenth chapter of the Clementine Constitutions”, concern-
ing all bishops in common, that they 77)v caOoXou érvaKoTriy
mioTevOnvat, “are intrusted with the inspection of the whole,”
as if they were each of them after a certain manner universal
bishop of the whole Church. The author of the Epistle which
is ascribed to Pope Eleutherius says*, ‘“‘ For the sake of
this thing the universal Church was* committed to your care 2p. pas
by Christ Jesus, that you should labour for all, and not bee”)
neglect to bring help to all.” Sidonius Apollinaris in his
sixth book, writing to Lupus bishop of Troyes in Champagne,
says”: “ Blessed be the Holy Spirit, and the Father of (Christ)
the Almighty God, that you a father of fathers, and bishop
of bishops, and another St. James of your age, do, as from a
certain watch-tower of charity*, and not from the lower Jeru-
salem, oversee all the members of the Church of our God;
worthy to comfort all the infirm, and to be deservedly con-
sulted by all.” And the reason which persuaded the ancient
fathers of this is, that the universal Church spread over the
whole world is only one, its body but one, its head but one,

x [Ubicunque fuerit episcopus sive
Rome sive Eugubii, &c.... ejusdem
meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii.—S.
Hieron, Epist. exlvi. ad Evangelum
(al. ad Evagrium) Op., tom. i, col.
1076, D.]

Y [ei ody GAndds tony Kal Thy avThy
nyeis0e Tiny Tov emickdmwy, Kal uh eK
Tov peyebous TaY TéAEwY, ws ypadeTeE,
Kpivere Tovs emickdmous, x. T. A.—S.
Athan. Apol. Cont. Arian. Op., tom. i.
p. 145, A.]

z (Const. Apost., lib. vi. ec. 14. ap.
Concilia, tom. i. col. 389, B.]

2 ( Hujus rei gratia universalis vobis
a Christo Jesu commissa est Ecclesia,
ut pro omnibus laboretis, et cunctis

opem ferre non negligatis. — Epist.
(Spuria) Eleutherii papz, ad Galliz
provincias ad fin.; ap. Concilia, tom. i.
col. 597, B, C.]

b [Benedictus Spiritus Sanctus, et
Pater Dei Omnipotentis, quod tu pater
patrum, et episcopus episcoporum, et
alter seculi tui Jacobus, de quadam
specula charitatis, nec de inferiore
Jerusalem, tota Ecclesiz Dei nestri
membra superinspicis; dignus qui om-
nes consoleris infirmos, quique merito
ab omnibus consularis.—Sidonii Apol-
linaris, lib. vi. Epist. 1. ad Lupum
papam, ap. Biblioth. Patrum, Galland.,
tom. x. p. 513, A. ]

¢ De quadam specula charitatis,

192 St. Cyprian on the unity of the episcopate.

arrennix, Jesus Christ, therefore also the episcopacy but one, though
a expanded as it were into many branches. St. Cyprian, in
his tract de Unitate Ecclesia, says‘, ‘ Let no man deceive the
brotherhood by a lie; let no man corrupt the truth of the
faith by a perfidious prevarication ;” episcopatus unus est,
cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur; “the episcopacy is
but one, part of which each bishop shares, so as to have a
right in the whole ;” for in solidum tenere signifies “to hold
by a plenary right,” and orXoxAnjpas, “as heir of all,” not by
way of deputation from any other lord upon earth, nor as
joint-bishop with any other: for of one Church there can be
but one bishop, as the canons direct®, and as the same father
proves in so many places. Also in his epistle to Pope Stephen
he says‘: “Though we are many shepherds, yet we feed but
one flock, and are obliged to gather together, and to cherish
all the sheep which Christ has purchased with His blood and
passion.” St. Cyprian alludes to St. Paul’s words in the
20th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, ver. 28, “Take
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the
Church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood.”
Again St. Cyprian in his divine treatise de Unitate Ecclesia,
says®, “ We ought firmly to hold and defend the unity of the
Church, especially we who are bishops, and preside in the
Church, that we may prove the episcopacy itself also to be
one and undivided.” Whoever considers this will at the
same time understand the true cause of many orders and
institutions of the ancient Church, out of the vast multitude
of which it may suffice to have here mentioned a few before
we come to explain the rights of appeals.
The fathers therefore were accustomed to send an account
to the other bishops of all matters of any importance, which
they had done or determined in their Churches or provinces.

4 [Nemo fraternitatem mendacio fal-
lat, nemo fidei veritatem perfida pre-
varicatione corrumpat. Episcopatus
unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum
pars tenetur.—S. Cypr. de Unitate Ee-
elesiz, Op., p. 195.]

* [Etsi pastores multi sumus, unum
tamen gregem pascimus, et oves uni-
versas quas Christus sanguine sno et

passione quesivit colligere et fovere
debemus.—Id., Epist. Ixvii. ad Stepha-
num, p. 116. ]

® { Unitatem, firmiter tenere et vin-
dicare debemus, maxime episcopi, qui
in ecclesia presidemus, ut episcopatum
quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum
probemus.—Id., de Unitate Ecclesiz,
p- 195. ]

Relation of the Churches of Rome and Carthage. 193

As for instance, the council of Africa had decreed not to
receive the lapsed to peace till after a long penance. After-
wards when they were threatened with a persecution, they
thought fit to alter this sentence. St. Cyprian gives an
account of this to Pope Cornelius in a letter", in which he
also explains at large the reasons for calling a council; not
as an inferior giving an account to his superior, but out of
Christian charity for the preservation of unity. For which
reason the same father elsewhere gives this account, why he
writes with so much solicitude to the Roman clergy concern-
ing the supplication of the lapsed, and the immodest de-
mands of the confessors'; ‘‘ Both common charity, most dear
brethren, and reason requires, that we should not conceal
from you any of these things which are done among us ; but
take common counsel together concerning the interest of the
ecclesiastical administration.” And the Roman clergy in
answer to his epistle ingenuously profess that St. Cyprian
did not do this because obliged thereto upon the account of
subjection, but from the affection of charity*: “It is no
wonder, brother Cyprian, that you do this, who according to
your modesty and natural industry did not so much desire
that we should be judges as partakers of your counsels, that
we might share with you in the praise of your actions, while
we approve them; and be partners of your counsels because
we assent to them.”

From this custom the use of synodical epistles came, of
which something was said above. Alexander, bishop of Alex-
andria“, in the beginning of his circular letter, which he writ
to all the bishops, after he had condemned Arius in a pro-
vincial synod, explains the cause of this custom thus!:
“ Seeing the body of the Catholic Church is one, and we are

h [Id., Epist. liv. ad Cornelium, de rumnos non tam judices voluisti quam

pace lapsis danda; Op., p. 77.1]

i [Et dilectio communis et ratio ex-
poscit, fratres carissimi, nihil con-
scientiz vestre subtrahere de his que
apud nos geruntur, ut sit nobis circa
utilitatem ecclesiastice administra-
tionis commune concilium.—Id., Epist.
xxix. (al. xxxv.) ad presbyteros et dia-
conos Rome consistentes, p. 39. ]

k [Quod te, frater Cypriane, facere
non mirum est, qui pro tua verecundia
et ingenita industria consiliorum tuo-

HICKES.

participes inveniri, ut in tuis rebus
gestis laudem teeum, dum illas proba -
mus, inveniremus, et tuorum consilio-
rum bonorum coheredes, quia et affir-
matores, esse possimus.—Epist. xxxi.
(Cleri Romani ad Cyprianum), ap. S.
Cypr. Op., p. 42. ]

1 [ €vbs o@uaTtos byvTos THs KaoALKHS
exkAnolas, evToAys te ovons ev tats
elas ypapais, rnpety Toy civdecpuov Tis
duovolas Kal eiphyns, akoAovOdy eort
ypacpew NMas, Kal onuatvery GAANAGLS Th

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. IIl.

SECT. IV.

194 Mutual communications among Churches by letters.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

obliged by the tradition and command of holy Scripture to
hold the bond of concord and peace ; it is fit we should con-
verse with one another by letters, and give each other an
account what thimgs are done by every one of us, that
whether any of the members suffer or rejoice, we also among
ourselves may suffer or rejoice with them.” ‘They were
wont also in the creation of bishops both sometimes to send
their suffrages, and when it was over, to declare the new
bishop by congratulatory letters. Thus St. Cyprian by his
own authority, and that of the other bishops of Africa, ap-
proves of the election of Pope Cornelius in his forty-second
Epistle according to Pamelius’s edition™. And they who
were promoted to episcopal sees, signified their vocation by
circular letters, written to all the bishops, or at least to those
of the principal sees, which letters contained the profession
of their faith. There are many letters of that kind extant to
this day, especially of the bishops of Rome and Constan-
tinople", performing this office mutually to each other. But
it appears from St. Cyprian, whose Epistles are a vast trea-
sure of ecclesiastical antiquity, that letters were used to be
sent to the Churches beyond the seas, even concerning the
ordinations of inferior ministers in the Church, to wit, of
presbyters, readers, deacons, and sub-deacons®. And some-
times also they mutually admonished, exhorted, and reproved
one another. Thus St. Cyprian comforts Pope Cornelius,
and exhorts him to despise the threats of the heretics’. But
in his sixty-eighth Epistle he gives his opinion very freely
concerning Pope Stephen, on whom through his neglect
Basilides had imposed unawares?; which he does also upon
another occasion in a very severe manner in his Epistles to
‘Quirinus’ and Pompeius*. But the same Pope Stephen

1 [Quintus.]
is yet much more vehemently accused by Firmilianus,

map éxaorots yiwdoueva’ iva etre Tao xXEl,
elre xalper ev wéAos, 7) cuumacxwper, })
ovyxaipwuey aAAhAows.—Epist. Synod.
Alexandri, ap. Concil., tom. ii. col. 149,
D, E.]

m [{S. Cypr. Epist. xlii. ad Corne-
lium, Op., p. 56. ed. Ben. ]

” Rome Veteris et Nove.

p [S. Cypr. Epist. lvii. ad Cornelium ;
in exilio de ejus confessione, Op., p.
94. ]

4 {Id., Epist. lxviii. ad clerum et
plebes in Hispania consistentes, de Ba-
silide et Martiale, p. 119.]

r [Id Epist. Ixxi, ad Quintum,
ibid., p. 126. ]

+ [Id., Epist. lxxiv. ad Pompeium,
ibid., p. 138. ]

Bishops interposed in other dioceses in case of need. 195

bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in those letters which he
writ to St. Cyprian'; and which though they defended a
cause that the Church afterwards did not approve, yet afford
nevertheless a certain argument of what we have asserted.
Thus when the African council held about the year 407
understood that there was a disagreement between Pope
Innocent and Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria, they made
no doubt but it was part of their duty to admonish the
patriarchs of the east and west": “ It was resolved,” says the
canon, “that a letter should be written to the holy Pope
Innocent, that both Churches might preserve that peace with
each other which the Lord has commanded.” And to how
many bishops over the whole world the bishops of Rome
have performed the same office cannot but be very well
known to every one. They were wont also with impunity to
institute priests and other clergymen in the districts of other
bishops, how much soever by the ordinary canon law ai
virepoptor YerpoToviar, “ordinations in other dioceses” were
forbid: as we see in the thirty-fifth Apostolic Canon*. Yet
pious bishops are often read to have done that, not out of
any ambition, but by virtue of that universal episcopacy
above mentioned: and it appears that this has been done
especially in the exigency of the Church. Theodoret, in his
fourth book, chap. xiii., gives us this relation concerning
Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, that great champion of Christ,
when the Emperor Valens made havoc of the Church’:
“Eusebius understanding that many Churches were de-

' [Firmilianiepiscopi Casarexe Cap-
padociz ad Cyprianum contra episto-
lam Stephani, Epist. Ixxv. ap. S. Cypr.
Op., p. 142. This is the only letter
of Firmilianus; the cause which he
maintained was that persons baptized by
heretics ought to be rebaptized on their
admission into the Catholie Church. ]

u [Placuit etiam ut de dissensione
Romanz atque Alexandrine ecclesize
ad sanctum papam Innocentium scri-
batur, quo utraque ecclesiz intra se
pacem, quam przcepit Dominus, teneat.
—Ecclesie Africane Canon ci. Con-
cilia, tom. ii. col. 1333, D; see Con-
cil. Africanum IV. (A.D. 407.) ibid.,
tom. iii. col. 101.]

* [émickomoy ph Toduay iw Tay
éavTov bpwy xetpoTovias Torco Oat cis TUS

pa) bwoKeméevas avVTG TOAELS Kal Kwpas.
ei Se eAcyxOeln TovUTO TeTOINKwWs Tapa
Thy Tay KaTexdvTwy Tas TéAELS eKelvas
} tas xdpas yvouny, kabatpeloOw rad
avtos, Kal ods exeipordynoev.— Apost.
Canon xxxiv. (a), xxxv.) ap. Concilia,
tom. i. col. 32, C, D.]

y [obros yap (EvoéBios) moAAas Tay
exkAnola@y ephuous eivat Tommevwy aber,
OTPATIWTIKOY aumexXdmevOS TXTHMa, Kar
Tips KaAUTT WY Thy KEpadHyY, THY Suplay
mepinel, Kal THY Powlkny Kat THY TlaAau-
orivny,mper But epous XepoTovay kab dia-
Kévous, Kal Ta GAAG TaypaTa THs eKKAn-
clas avarAnpay’ «i b€ mote Kad emioKd-
mov dmoyvwoudvey eméeruxe, Kal mpoé-
Spous tais deomevais exxAnolats mpov-
BadAeto.—Theodoret, Hist. Ecel., lib.
iv. c. 14. p. 164.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. ITT.
SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

196 Cases of bishops redressing the evils of other Churches,

prived of their pastors, clothing himself in the habit of a
soldier, and putting a turban upon his head, went over all
the countries of Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, to ordain
priests and deacons, and perform other ecclesiastical offices
among them. And if at any time he happened to meet with
bishops, who agreed in doctrine with him, he set them over
those Churches that wanted pastors.” Ruffinus says of
Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, who in the times of the Emperor
Constantius was an exile in Asia?: “Lucifer with a fixed
mind goes to Antioch, where the parties still disagreeing, yet
not without hopes of being united, if they might have such
a bishop chosen for them, as not only one but both parts of
the people should like, he makes haste to constitute Paulinus
their bishop, an orthodox and holy man, and in all things
worthy of the sacred order.” In like manner Hosius bishop
of Corduba, Gregory Nyssen, Eusebius bishop of Vercelli,
and Epiphanius bishop of Salamina in the island of Cyprus,
and other great men, while upon divers occasions they passed
through different provinces, redressed their grievances as far
as they could, confirmed the true faith, and solemnized ordi-
nations. And as often as new heresies or schisms arose,
if they were neglected by the nearest neighbouring bishops,
or such who lived at no great distance, yet they were by no
means neglected by such as dwelt afar off, who would not
place their hope of the Church’s safety in the diligence of
others, and be unconcerned spectators themselves. Thus
St. Cyprian* sent Caldonius and Fortunatus from Carthage
to Rome, to compose the schism ; again when Cornelius was
bishop of that see, the same father sent Mettius a sub-deacon
to Rome, to reclaim the confessors seduced there by the
wickedness of Novatianus and Novatus”, and bring them
back to their mother, that is, to the Catholic Church, from
which they had departed: and the same man of God, when

2 [(Lucifer) intento animo Antio-
chiam pergit, ibique dissentientibus
adhue partibus, sed in unum tamen
revocari posse sperantibus, si sibi talis
eligeretur episcopus, erga quem non
una plebs, sed utraque gauderet, pre-
properus catholicum quidem et sanc-
tum virum, ac per omnia dignum sacer-

dotio Paulinum episcopum collocavit.
—Ruffini Presb. Hist. Ecel., lib. i. e¢.
Pe Opusc.aps iL te

a (S. Cypr. Epist. xlii. ad Corne-
lium, Op., p. 56.]

> [Id., Epist. xliv. ad Confessores
Romanos ut ad unitatem redeant. (vid.
Fpist. xliii. ad Cornelium,) p. 58. ]

as SS. Cyprian, Hilary, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria. 197

he understood that Martianus bishop of Arles had joined him- casavsow

self to Novatianus, wrote gravely to Pope Stephen, and shewed “hoot,”
him in a brotherly manner what was necessary to be done, Cis 0*

SECT. IV.
“Tt is,” says he*, “ most dear brother, our duty to take care es

of and remedy that matter, who considering the divine
clemency, and holding the balance of Church government,
do [so] denounce a vigorous censure against sinners,” &c.
And presently after’: “Wherefore you ought to write most
fully to those, who are our fellow-bishops in France, that they
do not any longer suffer our episcopal college to be insulted
by Martianus, an obstinate and proud man, and an enemy
to piety towards God, and to the salvation of his brethren.”
So also St. Hilary’, that light of the Gallican Church, when
he knew that Auxentius an Arian sat in the see of Milan,
hastened thither, and endeavoured with all his might to
expel that pestilent heretic. St. Basil tells us of St. Atha-
nasius’, that he “never gave over, sometimes in person,
sometimes by letters, and often by his legates, endeavouring
to reclaim all the Churches every where” to soundness of
mind, and to concord and unity. And that the same
St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, did particularly at
Antioch appease very great tumults by his authority, is both
asserted by St. Basil?, and confirmed by the history of the
Church. By the same right also St. Cyril", knowing that
Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople was sowing certain
blasphemous doctrines against the nature of Christ, and the
honour of the blessed Virgin, the true Mother of God, not
mattering the pretor’s interdict for the regulating of bounds,
sets himself to oppose him, at first with more mildness, but
afterwards with all manner of freedom and courage: and not

¢ [Cui rei nostrum est consulere et
subvenire, frater carissime, qui divinam
clementiam cogitantes et gubernande
ecclesiz libram tenentes sic censuram
vigoris peccatoribus exhibemus, ut ta-
men, &c,—Id., Epist. Ixvii. ad Stepha-
num, p. 115. |

4 {Quapropter facere te oportet ple-
nissimas litteras ad coepiscopos nostros
in Galliis constitutos, ne ultra Marcia-
num pervicacem et superbum et divine
pietatis ac fraternz salutis inimicum
collegio nostro insultare patiantur.—
Id., ibid. }

e [See S. Hilarii Pictay. Lib. contra
Auxentium, Op., col. 1263, sqq. |

f [6s ye ovdeva xpdvov Siadelrets Bia-
Aeydmevos, voueTay, emiaTeAAwY, EK~-
TéeuTwv TWAS EKdOTOTE TOUS bTOTWELE-
vous Ta BeATioTa.—S. Basil. Epist. xlix.
ad Athanasium, Op., tom. iil. p. 161,
E.

& [Id., Epist. xvi. ad Athanasium,
ibid., p. 159, D, sqq.; et Epist. cexiv.
ad Terentium, p. 321, C, sqq. |

h [See Epistola S. Cyrilli, ap. Cone.
Ephes. pars i. ec. 2—12. Concilia, tom.
iii. col. 586, sqq. |

198 Assistance was sought from other Churches ;

arrennrx. long after invites Celestine, archbishop of Rome, to share

NO. VI.

with him in the same praise'. Lastly, in the dissensions of
Churches, the greater any one’s authority was, and the more
he abounded in divine graces, the more he concerned him-
self in the affairs even of the most remote Churches: nor
was that in those times a matter of envy to any one, but
rather of the greatest glory with all men. So much nearer
at that time was the administration of the Church to a
certain most beautiful aristocracy, than to that absolute
and new invented monarchy, which afterwards began to be
brought in. Therefore Nestorius himself is forced to com-
mend his enemy St. Cyril on that account, although he
would not reap any benefit from his pious admonition. His
words are these*: Tis 5€ ye Tov cKxavdarifopuevav ppovtidsos
KANOS ToLeis avTeXopevos, Kal yapis TH TOV Oelwv mepyLyn-
TUK cou Wuy}, Kal TOV Tap auiv dpovtTifovcyn. By which
words he commends the care of St. Cyril, im consulting the
peace of the Church, by removing offences, and gives him
thanks for expressing so much concern for the Church of
Constantinople, over which Nestorius himself presided.
These things were necessary to be premised, that we might
be able to understand what rights of appeals there were in
the ancient Church. For because it was known to all, that
whatever broke the unity or disturbed the quiet of the
universal Church, did equally belong to the care of all the
bishops ; therefore they, who in their own province, whether
justly or unjustly, had suffered a sentence of condemnation,
often fled to the bishops of other provinces, to implore their
help. Again, because amongst all the Churches the Roman
was the most eminent upon many accounts, many therefore
betook themselves to Rome, that by the favour and authority
of the bishop of that see they might recover their episcopal
thrones, if they had been deposed from them, and if sus-
pended from communion might be restored to it. So
formerly Marcion in Helenopontus, which was the native
country of that monster, being excommunicated by his
father, says Epiphanius', that is, by the bishop of Sinope,

i [Tbid., c. 14 col. 889.] 878. C.]
* [Epist. Nestorii ad S. Cyrillum, ! [See below, p. 205. ]
ap. Cone. Ephes. parsi.c. 9, ibid., col.

particularly (not as of exclusive right) from that of Rome. 199

as I suppose, not able to bear this reproach among his own
people, went to Rome: so afterwards Felix and Fortunatus
in Africa™, cut off from the Church by St. Cyprian’s spiritual
sword, go to the same place. In like manner also St. Atha-
nasius, St. John Chrysostom, Flavianus of Constantinople,
the monks of Scythia, and others in the east", being evil en-
treated, did either in person, or by their procurators, seek
the pope’s help. Therefore they who pretend® that such
instances as these are certain testimonies of appeals to the
bishop of Rome, will be of another mind, if they will con-
sider what we have been hitherto saying concerning the
care of the universal Church, which was of old common to
all bishops; and will yield to truth: for although the see of
Rome excelled in a certain prerogative of honour, and there-
fore by its favour and authority was able to do something
more than any one of those other Churches, even which had
most power: yet if the right be considered, it was no more
the custom in those first ages to appeal to Rome, than to
Alexandria, or Carthage, or Milan, or any where else; from
whence in a like case it is manifest help was sought. For
Privatus? a heretic bemmg condemned in the colony of Lam-
besca in Africa, came to Carthage, to plead his cause there ;
Novatianus4 a Roman presbyter being excommunicated by a
council at Rome, petitioned to be received into communion by
the African Churches, and that of Alexandria; the Scythian
monks being refused communion by the patriarch of Constan-
tinople, to make way for their re-admission sent two mes-
sages into the west’, one into Italy to Pope Hormisda, and
the rest of the Italian bishops; the other to the prelates of
the African Churches. St. John Chrysostom himself, whose
example is used to be so much urged, did in his exile with
the same ink write letters upon the same subject® to Innocent
bishop of Rome, and Venerius bishop of Milan, and Chroma-
tius bishop of Aquileia. For indeed it is an old observation,

m {See below, p. 207.] S [éeypdpn 5é atrn kal mpds Bevépiov
n { See below, pp. 211, sqq.] émloxotmoy MedioAdvov, kal Xpwydrioy
° [Bellarminus de Summo Pont., émickomoy ’AxvAnyias.—S. Joan. Chrys.
lib. ii. c. 21, Op., tom. i. p. 331.] ad Innocentium Papam. Epist. ap.
P [See below, p. 203. ] Pallad. Vit., Op., tom. xiii. p. 9, E.
4 [See ibid. ] See Epist. cly. ad Chromatium, Op.,

r [See Baronius, ann. 519, num. 99, tom. iii. p. 189, E. Epist. clxxxii. ad
1} Venerium, ibid., p, 702, D.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,
CHAP, LIT.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX,

NO. VI.

200 Appeals were only made canonically to larger councils; as

and the naked truth of the matter stood thus of old: they
who had been condemned by an episcopal sentence, in order
to get themselves restored, made use either of the ordinary
canon law, or of that which was extraordinary. The ordi-
nary law was, that there should be an appeal from a less
assembly to a greater: now the greatest ecclesiastical as-
sembly is a general council: but before Constantine there
neither ever was any such council, nor is there any instance
of an appeal to such a one: for which reason neither in those
which are called the Apostolical Canons, nor in the Clemen-
tine Constitutions, where there are so many things concern-
ing ecclesiastical and episcopal decisions, is there any men-
tion of a general council, any more than of appeals to the
see of Rome. And yet it is manifest, that even in those
times controversies were used to be referred from a less
assembly to a greater. St. Cyprian upon the approach of a
persecution, did in the cause of the lapsed, communicating
his purpose to a few, determine to receive them into the
Church. Afterwards many disapproving the thing, as soon
as the Church had rest and tranquillity, and they had liberty
to meet together, he assembled a great number of bishops,
and proposed this question to be debated by them. And
when neither by that means the scrupulous minds of many
were satisfied, St. Cyprian of his own accord, being the most
rigid observer of ecclesiastical discipline, brought the matter
to be controverted anew by a yet more numerous meeting
of bishops: for he writes thus to Antonianus his accuser':
“Tf the number of bishops in Africa seemed not sufficient,
we wrote also upon this subject to our colleague Cornelius,
who also himself assembling a council of many comprovin-
cial bishops, with like judgment and wholesome moderation,
agreed with us in the same opinion.” And the same thing
is also manifest from the repeated condemnation of Jovinus
and Maximus, of which we shall speak presently».

But farther, there was so much rigour in the discipline of

t [Si minus sufficiens episcoporum _concilio, in eandem nobiscum senten-
in Africa numerus videbatur, etiam tiam pari gravitate et salubri modera-
Romam super hac re scripsimus ad _ tione consensit.—S. Cypr. Epist. lii.
Cornelium collegam nostrum; qui et ad Antonianum, Op., p. 67.]
ipse cum plurimis coépiscopis habito " [See below, p. 203. |

excommunicates could be restored only by their own Bps. 201

those times, that he who was excommunicated by the sentence
of his bishop, with the consent of the presbytery, was as much
banished from all the Churches of the whole world as if that
sentence had been pronounced against him by any general
council; for to such a one no admission was given into any
Church whatever without communicatory letters, and those
letters could be had only from that bishop from whom he
had received the sentence of excommunication, and from no
mortal besides. For if any one, despising this practice, ad-
mitted to communion in his Church one that was excommu-
nicated elsewhere, he was so far from hereby absolving the
guilty person, that he actually involved himself in the same
sentence of excommunication. Read the tenth, eleventh,
and twelfth apostolic canons*, and also the thirty-second’ and
the thirty-third’, together with what Zonaras and Balsamon
write upon them*. By this means that rule of St. Cyprian
was necessarily observed, that” “ every one’s cause was heard
there where the crime had been committed.” From whence
also, by a like necessity, it followed that there was no occa-
sion for appeals to judges without the province. And this
was the ordinary law when the strict observance of those
canons was required.

They who conspired with more obstinacy against the dis-
cipline of the Church, sought for assistance wherever they
could find it against the authors of their condemnation.
But we read of none that in those first ages made use of

x [et Tis GkowwrnT@, Kav ev olke, + [undéva tav tévwy emoxdrwv, })

cuvevinrat, ovTos apopi(érbo. —Apost.
Canon. x. Concilia, tom. i. col. 28, B.
el tis KaOnpnuevm KAnpiKds iy as
KAnpik@ ouvevéntat, Kabaipeicdw Kal
avTds.—A post. Canon. xi. ibid.

ef tis KAnpikds 7) AcuKds apwpiope-
vos, Arot &dexTos, dime cov ev éTépy
mOAEt, dex OH avev papper wy ovogTaTt-
KGY, Gpopi(érOw Kal 6 de~duevos Kal b
dexGels. ci SE apwpiopevos ely, emiTeL-
véerw avTg 6 apwpiouds, os Wevoaméevy
kal amarhoayTs Thy exkAnalay Tod Ocov.
—Apost. Canon. xii. ibid. }

Y [ef tis mpeaButepos, 7) didkovos amd
emioKOTou yevntar apwpicuevos, TOUTOV
ph ebeivar wap’ Erépov Béxec Oa, GAN 7)
Tapa Tov a&popicayTos avTdy, et wh by
Kata ouykuplay TeAeuThon 6 aoploas
aitoy érickomos.—Apost. Canon. xxxi.
(al. xxxii.) ibid. col. 32, A, B.]

HICKES,

mpeaButépwr, 7) Siaxdvev &vev ovoTati-
Kay Tpoodéxed Oar" Kal emipepomevwy av-
TOY, dvaxpwerbwoay. kal ef wey aor Kh
puKes THS cboeBelas, mpoadexerbwoay, ei
de unye, Thy Xpetav avTots emixopny7-
TayTEs, Eis Kowa! ‘ov abrovs BN mpoode-
Enode. TOAAG yap KaTa cuvaprayhy yi-
verat.— Apost. Canon, xxxii. (al. xxxiii,)
ibid., B. ]

a {Canones SS. Apost. Conciliorum,
&c., commentariis amplissimis Theo-
dori Balsamonis, pp. 238, 247. Par.
1620. Joannis Zonarz in Canones
SS. Apost., &c., Commentarii, pp. 6,
16. Par. 1618; et ap, Bevereg. Pandect.
Canonum, pp. 7, 8, 21, 22. }

» [Uniuscujusque causa illic audia-
tur ubi est crimen commissam.—S.
Cyor. Epist.lv. ad Cornelium, Op., p.
86.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, IIT,

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

202 Persons expelled from their own Churches seeking

this extraordinary means; or if any, yet very few, and those
for the most part heretics. St. Cyprian tells us that it
was the constant custom of the ancient heretics and schis-
matics, that after they were thrown out of the Church by
their own bishop, they went “from door to door, and from
town to town, seeking such as would communicate with
them :” and that for two ends, for they both longed to spread
their poison as far as they could, and most of them desired
to return to the communion of the Catholic Church. Hence
that running up and down of such sort of men, and frequent
sending of messengers out of their own province. ‘These
are St. Cyprian’s words in his forty-first Epistle concerning
those sent by Novatianus to the African bishops®; “ And
lest their audacious madness should ever stop, here also
they endeavour to draw aside the members of Christ to
join in their schism, and to divide and tear in sunder the
one body of the Catholic Church; that running about from
door to door through the houses of many, or from town
to town through certain cities, they may seek to themselves
companions of their obstinacy and schismatical error.”
Writing to the same Cornelius in his forty-ninth Epistle, he
says‘, “ By your letters I both understood myself and have
begun to instruct and acquaint others, that Euaristus, who
was just now a bishop, does not enjoy so much as lay com-
munion®, being banished both from his see and people, and
wandering in exile from the Church of God through other
far distant provinces, and having himself made shipwreck of
the truth and faith, endeavours to procure like shipwrecks
among certain others like himself.” But these wretches com-
ing without communicatory letters, the pious bishops ordered
them to be sent away, as St. Cyprian also in those two Epi-
stles assures us he did himself!. Nor did they only drive

© [Ac ne eorum furens audacia un-
quam desisteret, hic quoque in schis-
matis partes Christi membra distrahere
et catholice ecclesiz corpus scindere
ac laniare nituntur, ut ostiatim per
multorum domos, vel oppidatim per
quasdam civitates discurrentes obsti-
nationis sue et erroris sui sibi querant
comites.—S. Cypr. Epist. xli. ad Cor-
nelium, Op., p. 55. ]

4 [Quibus (se. vestris literis) et didi-

cimus, et docere atque instruere ceteros
cepimus, Evaristum de episcopo jam
nec laicumremansisse, cathedre et ple-
bis extorrem, et de ecclesia Christi ex-
sulem, per alias longe provincias ober-
rare, et ipsum veritatis ac fidei naufra-
gum factum, cirea quosdam sui similes
paria naufragia concitare.—Id., Epist.
xlix. ad Cornelium, p. 63. ]

[A communicatione eos nostra sta-

communion in others, refused ; causes sometimes re-heard. 203

from their communion such as were cut off from communion
elsewhere, but they also gave notice of them in their letters.
The same great writer in his fifty-fifth Epistle says®, “ When
Privatus, an old heretic, condemned by the sentence of
ninety bishops in the colony of Lambesca, now several years
ago, for many grievous crimes, and severely animadverted
upon in the letters of my predecessors Fabianus and Dona-
tus, professed himself desirous to plead his cause before me
in a council which I held on the 15th of May last, he was
not admitted.” Yet sometimes they were not wholly re-
jected who came without communicatory letters, but their
cause was re-heard, especially when the first sentence had
been pronounced but by a few. We have an instance of
this in the same Epistle'; for says Tertullian’s disciple, a
greater man than his master, “There were also present, as
companions to Privatus the heretic, Jovinus and Maximus,
who had been condemned for abominable sacrifices and
crimes proved against them by the sentence of nine bishops
my colleagues, and again excommunicated by more in coun-
cil with me last year.” Although the rigid observance of
the canons required that they who did not exhibit their own
bishop’s communicatory letters should immediately be driven
away without hearing them; yet because they complained of
the paucity of their judges, St. Cyprian condescended so far
as to allow their cause a re-hearing in a more numerous
assembly. This was lawful for St. Cyprian and the other
bishops, according to the Christian lberty which the
Churches then enjoyed, and also by the right of an uni-
versal care, or, as it is in the Clementine Constitutions', rs

tim cohibendos esse censuimus.—Id.,
Ep. xli. p. 55. Communicatione pro-
hiberi pro certo tenebat.—Id., Ep. xlix,
p- 64. }

& [ Per Felicianum autem significavi
tibi, frater, venisse Carthaginem Priva-
tum yeterem hereticum in Lambesi-
tana colonia ante multos fere annos ob
multa et gravia delicta nonaginta epis-
coporum sententia condemnatum, ante-
cessorum etiain nostrorum, quod et
vestram conscientiam non latet Fabiani
et Donati litteris severissime notatum ;
qui cum causam suam apud nos in con-
cilio quod habuimus idibus Maiis, que

proxime fuerunt, agere velle se diceret,
nec admissus esset, Fortunatum istum
sibi pseudoépiscopum dignum collegio
suo fecit.—Id., Epist. lv. ad Corne-
lium, p. 84. ]

h [Sed et Jovinus et Maximus co-
mites cum Privato probato heretico
affuerunt, ob nefanda sacrificia et cri-
mina in se probata sententia novem
episcoporum collegarum nostrorum con-
demnati, et iterato quoque a pluribus
nobis anno priore in concilio abstenti.
—lId., ibid. ]

i | Const. Apost., lib. vi. c. 13; quoted
above, p. 191.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. Il.
SECT. LV.

APPENDIX,
NO. VI.

204 Heretics had recourse to distant Churches, and so to Rome.

Ka? 6rov émicKxomhs, of a general episcopacy, which we
spake of above. By which right also the prelates of those
times did sometimes take upon them, if any bishop in
another province was said to think amiss concerning the
faith, not altogether to reject such an accusation, but to
think it very much belonged to them. Therefore Diony-
sius, bishop of Rome, when he was informed by the Penta-
politans that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, had wrong
sentiments concerning the nature of Christ, and published
them in his writings, did not neglect this accusation, though
no more than a false calumny, as the event shewed, but at
the same time undertook the defence of the true doctrine,
and wrote a confutation of the false, and debated the matter
by letters with him who had been accused, as St. Athanasius
informs us, who has wrote that history at large*™.

But farther, those heretics who had suffered sentence of
condemnation, and run up and down the neighbouring pro-
vinces in vain, that they might the more easily deceive, went
to those farther off; therefore most of them repaired to
Rome. St. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth Epistle to Pope Cor-
nelius, says': “To conclude, because they know their own
conscience, they neither dare to come to us, nor approach
the threshold of the Church, but wander up and down abroad
through the provinces, to circumvent and make spoil of the
brethren ; and being now sufficiently known to all, and every
where excluded for their impieties, they also sail thither to
you.” Who doubts but it was of old the common endeavour
of all heretics and schismatics, that (what St. Cyril in two
places writes of Nestorius™) they might be able with regard to
the Church of Rome, cvvaprracat, that is, by stealth to recon-
cile her to themselves, and draw her over to their party? For
they could not by any more compendious method come to
the communion of the other Churches, than by shewing that

k [S. Athan. de Sententia Dionysii,
§ 13. Op., tom. i. p. 252. Cf. § 25, 26,
pp- 2380, 232. ]

' [Denique quia conscientiam suam
norunt, nec nos audent adire aut ad ec-
clesiz limen accedere, sed foris per pro-
vinciam circumveniendis fratribus et
spoliandis pererrant, et omnibus jam
satis noti, atque undique pro suis faci-

noribus exclusi, illue etiam ad vos navi-
gant.—S. Cypr. Epist.lv. ad Cornelium,
Op., p. 87.

m {S. Cyrilli Epist. ad Joan. Antioch.
Op., tom. vi. p. 43, A, et ap. Conc.
Ephes. pars i. c. 21. Concilia, tom. iii.
col. 928, E; Id., Epist. ad Juvenalem,
Op., ibid. p. 66, D., et ap. Cone., ibid.
c. 24, col. 936, D.]

This does not imply appeals to Rome ; alleged cases. 205

they had obtained communicatory letters from that of Rome, casavroy

whose faith was the most known, and her authority the ‘yc.
greatest. With this design there went formerly to Rome, (itr if

SECT. IV.

or (as St.Cyprian says) endeavoured “fraudulently"” and by
stealth to procure letters from the bishop of that see, Cerdon
out of Syria, Marcion from Pontus, Valentinus out of Egypt,
Basilides and Martialis from Spain; and out of Africa, Pri-
yatus, Felicissimus, Fortunatus, Novatus, and many others.
And in imitation of these a great many more in latter times.
But a wide difference is to be made between the design of
these wretched persons, and the cause of some most holy
men, as St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and a few
such like, whom history relates to have, in their adversity,
sought to Rome for relief from their troubles. But that
neither those former nor these latter, when they came to
Rome themselves, or sent their procurators thither, did
appeal to the bishop of Rome, I will shew in a few words,
and afterwards speak of the right, and last of all of the
advantage or danger of this right.

I pass over Cerdon and Valentinus, because no one (that
J know of) so much as of the modern writers has said that
they appealed to Rome. Marcion does in Cardinal Bellar-
mine stand in the front of the catalogue of such as have
appealed to the pope®. But neither Irenzus? nor Tertullian 4,
who mention his coming to Rome, say this, nor indeed Epi-
phanius, the only author quoted by the cardinal. From
whence therefore has he this fact? Epiphanius’s relation is
this’: Marcion being expelled communion in his own country
by his bishop, by many prayers aitjcas petavovar, “ having
sued for peace,’ could not bend the mind of the pious and
circumspect old man: hereupon not bearing the scoffs of his
countrymen he went to Rome, and because by the death of
Hyginus the see was then vacant, he applied himself to the

n [Hic execrandus qui fraudulenter idfov matpds .... ToAAG 570ev 6 Map-

obrepsit.—-S. Cypr. Ep. lxviii. de Ba-
silide, &c. ; Op., p. 119 &c.]

° (Bellarmin. De Summo Pontifice,
lib. ii. c. 21. Op., tom. i. p. 331. ]

P [See S. Iren. cont. Her., lib. iii.
c. 4. § 3. p. 178. ]

4 (See Tertull. de Prescr. Heret.,
ec. 30. Op., p. 212, C.]

¥ [éfeovra: THs eKKAnolas brd Tod

klwv Kabixetevoas, Kal aitnoas perd-
volav, ovk etAnde Tapa Tov idtov maTpos
..++ &S Tolyuy ovK ETUXE Tap avTod
51d THS KoAaKElas Gy ed€eTO, MH pepwv
Thy amd TeV TOAAGY XAEUNY, Gr0ddpd-
oke: THS TOAEwWS THS aUTHS, Kal &veow
els THY ‘Popny avTiyy, weTa TO TEAEUTT-
oa “Tyivov Tov érickotoy ‘Paéuns... Kal
rots ért mpeoBvtTais mepiovot, Kal amd

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

206 Case of Marcion; the seeking to be admitted to communion

presbyters of the Roman clergy, and desired of them cvvay-
Ojvat, “to be admitted to the holy communion.” They una-
nimously rejected his petition. Upon this Marcion began to
rage, and joined himself to Cerdon; and when, being ad-
monished of his error, he transferred the blame upon the
Roman presbyters, and said, ‘‘ Why would not you receive
me?” the pious presbyters answered, “ Because we cannot
do this without the permission of your venerable father ; (so
they called his bishop ;) for there is one faith, one consent of
all; nor is it lawful for us to oppose your father, our colleague
and fellow priest.” What is here, I beseech you, that can
afford even the lightest suspicion of an appeal? For to
appeal is to remove a cause from a less power to a greater.
But the Romans expressly deny that he can be loosed by
them, who had been bound by another; and this they had
right to deny; for it is a canon of the ancient discipline,
the twelfth among those called apostolicals ; “If any clergy-
man or layman excommunicated or suspended from com-
munion, going into another city, be received without com-
municatory letters, let both him be excommunicated who
is received, and him by whom he is received.’ Nor was
there any exception added to this canon, concerning any
privilege on this account indulged to the see of Rome:
therefore here is no greater power, and consequently no
appeal. But you will say, Marcion desires to be received
by the Romans ; which was to reverse the sentence before
given; therefore Marcion believed, and commonly all were
then persuaded, that the reversal of episcopal and synodical
sentences was to be sought for from Rome. Ridiculous !
I have already said, and proved it from St. Cypriant, that
this was the custom of heretics and schismatics, that when
expelled their own, they rambled to the neighbouring
Churches. What therefore did they seek from them? No

TOV wabnTav THY amrooTéAwY SpuwmEe- TYylov TaTpds Gov TOdTO ToLnoa. pla

vols ouuBdrwy, ret ouvaxO7jvat, Kar
ovdels avT@ ovyKex apne Chrw Aourdy
erapels, as ovK dmelAnge Thy ™poe-
Spiav TE Kal Thy eladvow TIS “ExkAnoias,
émivoet EavTa kal Tpoopevyyer Th TOU
drat eavos* KépBavos aiper es . +. TOUTO
oov pavepas avTots eAeye" Tt mh OEAN-
oare He bmodebar Oar ; Tay Se AcyévTwr,
drt ov Suvducda avev tis emitpoms Tod

yep éoT 4 whoTis, Kal ula dudvoia, Kab
ov Suvducda evayTiw6jvat TO KAAG ovA-
Aetroupy@, matp) 5é ow, K.T.A.—S. Epi-
phan. Her. xlii. Op., tom. i. p. 302, C,
D; p. 803, A, C, D.]

8 [Can. Apost. xii. Concilia, tom. i.
col. 28, B; quoted above, p. 201, note

X.i]
t [See above, p. 202. ]

is not appealing to Rome as to a higher authority. 207

man in his wits will deny, that they sought that commu-
nion and peace with them which they had lost among their
own countrymen: for in those times the belief of the unity
of the Catholic Church was so thoroughly rooted in the
minds of the faithful, that as he that was separated from one
Church, was banished from all; so he that was jomed with
one, had access to all by the commerce of letters communi-
catory. This occasioned that running up and down of those
that were excommunicated. So that if desiring the com-
munion of the Church of Rome is appealing to Rome, then
they appealed likewise to all other Churches. Had we not
better say, what all that have any insight into history know
to be most true? For because nothing was wont to be done
in this matter by authority, but ayamnrixds, as the Greek
fathers are used to speak, that is, out of the duty of Chris-
tian charity; therefore there was no appeal, nor any in-
equality of power for that purpose. Besides that the clergy
of Rome, in the vacancy of the see, had also a right of
giving communicatory letters, they themselves shew in that
letter which they wrote to St. Cyprian, where they make
mention of Privatus of Lambesca".

Next to Marcion Cardinal Bellarmine produces Fortunatus
and Felix*, “who being deposed in Africa by St. Cyprian,
went to Rome, and appealed to Cornelius.” This, he says,
he has from St. Cyprian, in his third Epistle, which in
Pamelius’s edition is the fifty-fifthY. St. Cyprian, good Sir,
does not say in that place, either that Felix or Fortunatus
went to Rome: but that Felicissimus was sent to Rome,
with many others, by Fortunatus, an intruding or mock-
bishop2, and ring-leader of sedition in Africa; with whom
Felix another intruding bishop took part. That he appealed
to the bishop of Rome, is neither said by St. Cyprian, nor is
it true. A schism arising in Africa, those two bishops were
made, partly by Privatus an old heretic, partly by a few
others, followers of the same heresy. When after the

u [Presbyteri et diaconi Rome con- _prianus, lib. i. Epist. 3. (ed. Erasm.)
sistentes ad Cyprianum; Epist. xxx, Bellarminus de Summo Pont., lib. ii.
ap. S. Cypr. Op., p. 41.] c. 21. Op., tom. i. p. 331. ]

x [Anno 252, Pontifice Cornelio, For- Y [See S. Cypr. Epist. lv. ad Corne-
tunatus et Felix in Africa a Cypriano lium, de Fortunato et Felicissimo, sive
depositi Romam navigaveruntatque ad contra Hereticos, p. 79. ed. Ben. }
Cornelium appellaverunt; testis Cy- 7 Pseudo-episcopo.—[Ibid., p. 83. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

208 Case of Fortunatus and Felix ; St. Cyprian.

example of St. Cyprian, and others who were of his opinion,
the rest of the African bishops also had, as it were striving
who should do it first, pronounced these Church-robbers* or
usurpers, to be aliens from the Church; and they had with-
out success sued for admission to communion from city to
city through the provinces of Africa; that they might up-
hold their sinking faction, many daily returning and knock-
ing (as St. Cyprian says) at the Church-door, they sent Feli-
cissimus to Rome, with most ample letters from a few intrud-
ing bishops, whom they falsely pretended to be the Catholic
Church of Africa. It was said above, that it was the custom
of the ancient Church, that they who were promoted to
bishoprics sent letters to the other bishops, thereby to
procure other letters back from them, by which it might
appear that they were of the same communion: for by this
means they were said to confirm the new election, who wrote
to the new bishops even from the most remote countries.
Thus St. Cyprian and the rest of the African bishops” ap-
prove the creation of Pope Cornelius. There is no doubt,
but the letters which Felicissimus, procurator of the intrud-
ing bishops, brought to Rome, were upon that subject; for
that was like to be the most effectual method to deceive
the people of Africa. Therefore that they might bring
communicatory letters from Cornelius, they did not only
make use of entreaties, which Cornelius immediately re-
jected; but they also applied menaces and terrors, which
almost conquered the Roman bishop; but when he was
staggering, St. Cyprian made him steady by that divine
fifty-fifth Epistle. But because Felicissimus with great
clamour boasted at Rome, that he was prepared to prove
that himself and his adherents had been without cause
excommunicated by the Catholics in Africa, and therefore
desired that his cause might have a re-hearing at Rome;
St. Cyprian says a great deal concerning the injustice of
that request, to dissuade Cornelius, who was inclining that
way, from a sentence like to be prejudicial to the liberty of
all the Churches. Great part of that Epistle is employed
in proving, that the faith and discipline of the Church are

® Predones Ecclesiz. » [Id., Epp. xlii. xlv. pp. 56, 59.]

The alleged appeal of Basilides and Martialis. 209

ruined, if the episcopal dignity be not inviolably preserved,
“af it be not thought that in Christ’s stead there is but one
bishop and one judge at a time in a Church®’.” But St.
Cyprian speaks of himself, and of all bishops in common,
who each of them held then several Churches, as bishops
of the whole; and does not speak of the bishop of Rome,
as some falsely and absurdly write. On the contrary, in that
place St. Cyprian does to Pope Cornelius defend his own
right, and that of the rest of the African bishops, against
Cornelius himself. Did Felicissimus therefore appeal to
Pope Cornelius, or they who sent him to Rome? By no
means: but by the custom of those times above mentioned,
they brought their complaint of an injury, as they thought,
received from their bishops, first to the African bishops, and
then to the bishop of Rome; by equal right to both. But
St. Cyprian, who could not bear that Cornelius, a holy
man, should use a little more authority in that matter than
seemed to agree with Christian charity, in that he so severely
rebukes him in the aforesaid Epistle, and puts him in the
same rank with others, does with one trouble inform us of
two things; that neither in those former times there was
any thing of that nature usually done in the Church of God ;
and that it ought not to appear wonderful to any one, that
in latter times things have happened far more grievous. For
new examples never stop there, where they first begun: the
proof of which was not long deferred, as will appear from
what I shall presently add:

For Cardinal Bellarmine goes on and says‘, “ Not long
after, Stephen being pope, Basilides, who was deposed in
Spain, appealed to Stephen.” Basilides and Martialis were
deposed in Spain for very great crimes. But Martialis stay-
ing at home, Basilides goes to Rome, where he obtains of
Pope Stephen communicatory letters both for himself and
for Martialis. Upon his return to Spain both Martialis and
he recovered their sees. Yet I deny that it can be said that
they appealed to the pope of Rome; they only used what I

© Unus in ecclesia ad tempus sa- Basilides in Hispania depositus, ad Ste-
cerdos, &c. ...judex vice Christi— phanum appellavit. Cyprianus, lib. i.
[Ibid., p. 82; quoted vol. ii. p. 326,u; Epist. iv. (Ixviii. ed. Ben.)—Bellarmi-
see also p. 80, quoted ibid., p. 325, q.] nus de Romano Pont., lib. ii. c. 21.

4 [Non diu post, Stephano Pontifice,, Op., tom. i. p. 831, C, D.]
HICKES, ECE

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, III.

SECT, IV.

210 St. Cyprian was appealed to after the decision of Pope

arrenvix. have frequently mentioned to have been the custom of the

NO. VI.

ancient Church, when they sought for themselves that help
from the bishop of Rome which without doubt they had in
vain expected from the bishops of the neighbouring pro-
vinces. But Stephen performed the office of an intercessor,
or rather of a witness, but not of a judge exercising a supe-
rior authority upon his brethren, and assuming dominion
over them. It is a most certain and clear argument of this,
and almost palpable im a literal sense, that as Basilides
and Martialis guarded themselves with the authority of the
bishop of Rome against their colleagues in Spain, by whom
they had been expelled from their sees, so their colleagues
armed themselves against the sentence of the bishop of
Rome with the judgment of St. Cyprian and of the African
bishops. If Stephen had pronounced sentence in behalf of
the excommunicate by the authority of a supreme judge,
and that right was ascribed to the bishop of Rome in that
age, what did the authors of the former sentence mean,
when after the return of Basilides they brought the whole
business before the bishops of Africa, and consulted them
upon it? St. Cyprian in his sixty-eighth Epistle says®,
‘““When we were met together we read your letters, most
beloved brethren.”” And then having related the facts he
adds, ‘‘ And you desired that we should write you an answer
to these things, and ease your just and necessary trouble,
either with the comfort or with the assistance of our sen-
tence.” Then he discusses the question, and shews them
from the divine precepts what ought to be done. Last of
all, he thus in a few words explains what was to be judged
concerning Stephen’s proceeding‘: ‘ Nor can he rescind an
ordinance rightly made, because Basilides, after having dis-
covered his crimes, and laid open his conscience even by his
own confession, going to Rome, imposed upon Stephen our

¢ [Cum in unum convenissemus le-
gimus literas vestras, fratres dilectis-
simi, We. ... Et desiderastis rescribi ad
hee vobis, et justam pariter ac neces-
sariam sollicitudinem vestram vel sola-
tio vel auxilio nostre sententiz suble-
vari.—S. Cypr. Epist. lxviii. ad clerum
et plebes in Hispania consistentes, de

Basilide ct Martiale, Op., p. 117. ]

f [Nec rescindere ordinationem jure
perfectam potest, quod Basilides post
crimina sua detecta et conscientiam
etiam propria confessione nudatam, Ro-
mam pergens Stephanum collegam nos-
trum longe positum et geste rei ac ve-
ritatis ignarum fefellit, ut exambiret
reponi se injuste in episcopatum de quo
fuerat jure depositus.—Ibid., p. 119. }

Stephen, and reversed it. Other cases alleged. 211

colleague, placed at a distance, and a stranger to the matter casauzoy
DE LIB,

of fact and to the truth, which was concealed from him, and _ xcct.
prevailed with him to restore him unjustly to his bishopric, {yor" 1
from which he had been justly deposed.” Even this alone,
that with so little difficulty and with so few words St. Cy-

prian reverses the sentence of Stephen, whether he do this

by his own authority alone, or with the advice of a few col-
leagues whom he consulted in this matter; even this alone,

I say, affords no contemptible argument for the truth: for if

those prelates had believed that the pope had then been law-

fully appealed to as to a supreme tribunal, can it be thought

they would have dared to reverse the sentence of an unac-
countable! judge in so light and negligent a manner? But ! {avumev-
you will say they reversed a false sentence, and one which ae
had been passed by a mistake; if it had been otherwise, that

they would have agreed and acquiesced in the judgment of

the bishop of Rome. I do not deny it; but readily confess

that such was the simplicity of that golden age that men of

their own accord complied with such as advised them well,
though persons of the meanest condition, much more with

the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and St. Paul,

as well im their doctrines as in their throne. Yet this I

say, and affirm it again and again, that those monarchical
commands were in that age unheard of in the Church of

God, which was hitherto free, and subject to no other lord

but Christ. Therefore there was no sovereign tribunal at

Rome, nor any appeal to the court of Rome.

Thus far the right of appeals to the see of Rome has been
defended by the examples of heretics and schismatics, whose
doctrine it is not usual to propose in the Church for proof,
nor their practice for imitation. But after these Cardinal
Bellarmine gives us examples of some few holy men®: of the
great St. Athanasius, who appealed to Pope Julius I.; of
St. John Chrysostom, who appealed to Innocent I.; of Fla-
vianus, bishop of Constantinople, who appealed to Pope Leo;
lastly, even of Theodoret, who also appealed to Leo. But
here I desire the reader who desires to know the truth, to
think it is his interest not to be ignorant how truly and
how appositely these facts are alleged, but to understand

® [Bellarminus de Romano Pont., lib. ii. c. 21. Op., tom.i. p. 331, C, D.]

212 = The true nature of an appeal properly so called.

arrenvix. and know them thoroughly. Indeed I will not deny, but
NO. VI. .
rather most readily acknowledge, that for a few ages past
there have been men of great authority, who, to maintain
the right of all appeals to the see of Rome, have produced
examples of so great heroes, and maintained that they ought
to be a rule to all good Christians. But to this I have these
two answers. Ist. I utterly deny that these holy men did
appeal to the pope of Rome; 2ndly. I positively assert that
whatever they did, when compelled by necessity, that is
wrongfully and absurdly alleged in proof of the ordinary
right. But the reader must remember that I speak here
concerning a true appeal, that is, an appeal taken according
to the propriety of the word; for it is a great mistake to
give the name of an appeal to every petition for help made
by a person that has suffered injury, whereas that only is a
true appeal which is made according to the laws by ordinary
right, and which is made from a less power to a greater.
But where the power is either none, or equal and the
same, that is not appealing, but flying for refuge. And
he that is appealed to, how much soever he may excel in
authority, unless the arbitration of the matter be left to
him by both parties, only does the office of an intercessor,
and not of a judge. The humanity of the Athenians was
of old so much celebrated among the Grecians, that many
who had been oppressed by the injury of such as were
too powerful for them, fled from all the parts of Greece to
the altar of mercy set up at Athens, as to a common refuge.
The Heraclide, the Argivi, the children of Hippocrates, and
a thousand others found help and assistance there. Yet if
any one had said, either at Lacedemon, or at Thebes, or
among the people of Megara, who dwelt in that neighbour-
hood, that men appealed to the Athenians from all parts of
Greece, without doubt he would not have escaped unpunished:
but rather, so jealous were that people of their liberty, would
have been in great danger of being torn to pieces by those
that heard him, or certainly would have been condemned of
the most stupid ignorance, for not knowing how to distin-
guish between the rule of right and the offices of humanity.
Thus whereas among the people of the Jews it was by divine
institution allowed for manslayers to fly to certain cities of

The petitions made to the Roman Church were not such. 213

refuge, it were a madness therefore to affirm that there lay
an appeal to those cities. In a word, it is one thing to procure
an intercessor against an angry father, or to desire the assist-
ance of a friend against an enemy, and to leave the judgment
of the cause to him; and another, to appeal from the unjust
sentence of an inferior judge to that of the pretor, or from
the pretor to the prince. That St. Athanasius therefore,
and St. Chrysostom, Flavianus, and other holy men implored
the assistance of the popes against manifest violence, I readily
acknowledge; and I own and willingly declare, that the
Church of Rome cannot be sufficiently commended upon
that account; that she hath by the same means both de-
fended the true faith against the mad opinions of Arius,
Nestorius, Eutyches, and other ancient heretics; and
reached forth her hand to the relief of faithful bishops suf-
fering for the same cause; but I assert that if is improper
and dangerous to call that an appeal, which was no more
than suing for help, seeing that, as we have already observed,
there is no appeal properly so called, but to a greater power.
Therefore when St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, and Flavi-
anus submitted their sees to the decrees of councils, he that
says they appealed to another council, says what is true, and
agreeable to the ancients: for as yet that age owned no
superior power in ecclesiastical affairs, but that of a greater
council, or perhaps of the prince, of which I shall speak here-
after. But if you say that they appealed to the patriarch of
Antioch, or of Jerusalem, or to the pope of Rome, you speak
either falsely or improperly: falsely, if you mean a true
appeal: but improperly, if you speak only of a petition for
help. There are many things extant of their own writing,
concerning the cases of St. Athanasius and St. John Chry-
sostom: but I deny that there can so much as one passage
be produced out of them, where they have said that they
appealed to Rome. I deny likewise that either Socrates, or
Theodoret, or Sozomen ever used the word of appealing in
that affair. For the historians say nothing else of St.
Athanasius, but that he went to Rome to consult his safety ;
nor any thing more of St. Chrysostom, than this, that he
sent letters to Innocent, and the bishops of the west, in
which he informed them of the injury he had suffered, and

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.

No. VI.

214 Controversies decided in the provinces where they arose ;

desired their help and assistance. I have shewed in the be-
ginning of this disquisition®, that the ancient bishops had so
great a regard for the unity of the Church, that each of them
thought, that in some sort the care of the universal Church be-
longed to him: and this was the reason that an injury offered
to any one of them concerned them all. Therefore although
the Apostolic Canons’, and those of the council of Nice*, and
many others required, that all controversies should be deter-
mined in those provinces in which they first arose ; yet as often
as any one was not able to obtain a fair hearing in his own pro-
per ecclesiastical court, the cause was removed to any other
bishops, or rather the arbitration of the matter submitted to
them ; nor did they decline the trouble of it, who were ap-
plied to in any such case: yet what they did was by no other
right than that of the universal episcopacy, which I have
explained above, and of Christian charity, the cement that
compacted them all together, and made them one body.
Thus Sozomen in his eighth book relates', that Ammonius
and Isidore sought relief from St. John Chrysostom, patriarch
of Constantinople, against the injuries done them by Theo-
philus, patriarch of Alexandria. Was there a right therefore
of appealing from the patriarch of Alexandria to the patriarch
of Constantinople? By no means, but the offices of humanity
are very different from, and of more extent than the obser-
vance of strict right. By what right therefore did they apply
themselves to St. Chrysostom ? This question is thus satisfied
by the words of Sozomen’s relation of the fact™; @ovro yap
évdikov Tappnoias avTov émipedovpmevov, SivacPar Ta Sixara

4 [See above, pp. 189, sqq. }

ouvaryomevay, Td TOLAUTA, fnrqpara ete-

1 [See above, p. 201, notes x, y, z. ]

Kk [mepl Ty akowwvyntwy yevouevay,
elre T@Y ev TS KANpH, elTe ev AaiKG
Tayuatt, bd TAY Kal ExdoTny emapxlay
emickdTmwy, KpateiTw ) yvaun kata Tov
kavéva Tov dtaryopevovra, robs ip’ Eré-
owy amroBAnbevtas, Ip ETepwy pe) Tpoa-
-€o 0a. eberaver Ow dé, uy ixpoduxia,
i) prroverkia, q Tw To.avTn andia Tov
emiokdrrov & amorvvaywyot YeyevmvT a. tva
obv TovTO THY Tpémoucav eberarw Aap-
Bdvn, Karas € EXEL edokev, € ékaoTov eviuy-
Tov Kal?” ExaoTny emapxiay dls Tov érovs
cvvddous Yveo bau iva Kows TAVTOV TOV
emoxdmay Tis emapxlas em Td abTd

rdfoito Kat obrws of dmoruryouneveas ™po-
oKexpourdres Te emirKdT@, KaTa Adyov
GxowsryTor mapa meow civat dééwot, mé-
xpis bv TE Kow@ Tov emickdtwy S6Ey Thy

piravOpwmrotépay vrép avtav exderOa
Wipov.—Con. Nicen. Can. y. Con-
cilia, tom. ii. col. 36, A. |

1 [ot wep) Avdckopoy kal’Aumdvioy ...
amémAevoay eis KwvotarvtwovmoAuw" aby
avtois 5 kal "IolSwpos. Kowih TE eomov-
dafov, mapa Baciret KpitH Kal "lwavyn
T@ emirkdTmw ehéyxecOa Tas KaT avToIV
émiBovAds.— Sozom., Kecl, Hist., lib.
Vili. c. 13. tom. ii. p. 342. ]

m [Id., ibid.]

other bishops applied to as arbiters by the injured parties. 215

Bon@eiv adrois: “for they thought,” says he, “that St. John
Chrysostom, through his concern for preserving lawful liberty,
could give them help in a just cause.” The learned writer
calls that care to procure the advantage of the universal
Church ézrpédeva évdixov mappnoias, common to all bishops :
for trappnota évédcxos is that lawful right of taking care, which
(as has been often observed) is in the Clementine Constitu-
tions styled 1) cafonrov émicxomn", “the inspection and over-
sight of the whole.” And thus Socrates plainly speaks in
his second book®, when he calls that letter of Pope Julius,
which he writ to St. Athanasius and the other bishops in
exile, that they might be restored to their sees, wappynovac-
TUG ypdppata, “a letter wrote with that liberty,’ which be-
longs to every bishop, but especially to the prelate of the
chief see. If any one had rather refer it to the liberty of the
Church, it is all one; for then will be meant that care which
the pastors ought to have, to preserve the liberty of every
one of the faithful, especially of the ecclesiastics, as these
were ; that the weaker be not oppressed by the stronger, as
Ammonius and Isidore complained had happened to them.
Afterwards Sozomen adds?, that St. John Chrysostom “wrote
to Theophilus, to receive those fugitives into communion,
because they were orthodox in the faith. If he thought their
cause was to be reheard, that he would send tov d:cacopevor,
that is, “somebody to begin the process against them.” For
St. Chrysostom takes upon him the part of a judge by the
same right that he afterwards, when condemned by a faction,
brought the judgment of his cause before Innocent, and other
bishops. In that Epistle of St. Chrysostom to Pope Innocent,
the ordinary right is excellently distinguished from the ex-
traordinary: for he says of Theophilus, and of himself 4; “ But
we being absent, and desiring to assemble a council, and
earnestly praying for judgment, not declining the hearing of

n (Const. Apost., lib. vi. c. 14, Con-
cilia, tom. i. col. 389, B. See above,
p- 191, note z. ]

¥ [{ Socrates, Eccl. Hist., lib. ii. c. 15.
p- 92.]

P [éypawe 5€ Ocopiaw, Kowwviay ad-
Tots Gmrodovvat ws Op0as Tepl Ocod Soéd-
Covow. ef 5€ Sikn Séor kpivecOa Ta KaT
avToUs, amogTeAAEy OV aUT@ SoKel Sika-

aduevov.—Sozomen. Hist. Ecel., lib.
viii, c. 13. p. 343. ]

4 [GAAG axdvtwv judy Kal odvodov
emikadoumevwy, kal Kplow éemiCnrovyTwr,
kal ovk aKxpdacw pevydvTwv, GAA’ améex-
Geiav pavepay, kal karnydpous éedexeTO,
k.T.A.—S. Chrys. Epist. ad Innocen-
tium, Op., tom. iii. p. 517, C.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. III,
SECT. IV.

216 The course taken by St. Chrysostom to obtain justice.

APPENDIX. OUI Cause, but only complaining of injuries, they yet admitted

NO. VI.

our accusers.” And soon after’: ‘ Getting,” says he, “on
board a ship, I sailed by night, because I was willing to call a
council for the hearing of that cause.” And a little below’:
“Going in to the emperor we begged that he would call a
council to revenge their wickedness.” And presently’: “ We
trusting in our own conscience urged the most pious emperor
to assemble a council.” And after a few words": ‘ We con-
tinued incessantly requesting that there might be a trial, in
which we might be heard and judged.” This was the true
discipline of those times. A synod maliciously deposes the
patriarch : he against a synod of his enemies appeals to an-
other synod, namely to a greater, or even to a general coun-
cil: here is not one word of the pope of Rome. But when
St. Chrysostom’s lawful petition was despised, and all things
carried by violence, nor any place left for ecclesiastical disci-
pline: then at last the holy man is forced to use an extraor-
dinary right, and beg help from his brethren. Hence those
letters of his to the eastern and western bishops, but especi-
ally to Innocent, bishop of Rome, as prelate of the chief see,
and of the chief authority. Therefore after he had said so
expressly, and repeated it so often, that he being willing to
make use of a canonical way of proceeding, did appeal to a
council, but without success: at length declaring the injuries
that had been done to him, and to other pious bishops* ;
“therefore,” says he, “my most holy and reverend lords, do
ye, thinking on these things, apply that authority and care
which is suitable and worthy of your constancy; and avert,
we beseech you, this great calamity, which has invaded the
Churches.” And then he desires that they would exert a
vigorous censure upon his adversaries; and if it should be

r [els mAotoy eveBadrdAduny, kal Sid
vurtos @mAeov, ered) ovvodoyv mpods d1-
kalay a&Kkpdacw mpoekadovunv. — Id.,
Bid. De]

S [eiowytTes mapekadoduey Thy Beo-
iréotatoy BactAéa, stvodov cuvaya-
yeiv eis exdikiay TaY yeyevnuevwy.—
Id. ibid., p. 518, A.]

t [GAA’ jets odde of ws Earner, 5 &
7) T@ cuvEldoTt Oappety TS NueTepw, TA
avra mdAW TapakadovyTes Tov evoEBE-
oratov BaciAéa.—Id., ibid., B.]

u [émerelucda atiovvres SikacThpiov
yevéoOa Kata medow Kal amdxpiow.—
Id., ibid., C.]

x [ uaddvres Tolyuy arava, KUptol jou
TiywimTato. Kal evAaBeoTaToL, THY Tpo-
onkovoay buy avdpelay Kad omovd)y em-
deltacbe, boTre Tapavouiay Tooca’tny
émemreAPodoay Tais €KKANClals avacTet-
Aat.—S, Chrys. ibid., p. 520, A. et ap.
Palladii vitam S. Chrys., Op., tom. xiii.
p. 9.]

‘The reference to Rome in the case of St. Athanasius. 217

necessary, undertake the hearing of his cause: and by this
means the cognizance of the cause between St. Chrysostom
and Theophilus was brought before Pope Innocent and the
western bishops; and that (as you see) by the complaint of
St. Chrysostom himself.

In the cause of St. Athanasius it happened a little other-
wise: for both parties invited Pope Julius to bring the hear-
ing of that cause before himself. After the fall of St. Atha-
nasius a synod of pious bishops was convened, who wrote a
synodical letter to all the bishops of the whole world, and
also sent legates to the more considerable Churches, to shew
the innocence of St. Athanasius to them all, and exhort them
universally to espouse his cause. This letter, says St. Atha-
nasius in his Apology! for his flying away’, was sent “ both to
all the other bishops, and to Julius, bishop of Rome.” So
that by writing that letter the synod did as it were sound
an alarm against St. Athanasius’ enemies; and at the same
time constituted judges of his cause all the bishops who
were in a condition to help him. Afterwards were added
the prayers, not only of St. Athanasius, when he was come
into the city, but also of the other bishops, who were likewise
in exile there; and these were men of great authority and
reputation, viz., Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, Marcellus,
bishop of Ancyra, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. But that
the other party also brought the cause before Julius, St.
_ Athanasius shews, and the historians from him. These are
that father’s words in the same book’: “ Moreover the Euse-
bians also wrote a letter to Julius; and because they thought
they should strike terror into us, they desired a synod might
be convened, and that Julius himself, if he pleased, might
be made judge of their cause.” This letter of Husebius’
faction seems to have come to Rome before St. Athanasius
got thither, or the holy synod’s epistle was delivered to
Julius: for Theodoret writes thus: Julius having received
Eusebius’s letter*, 76 THs éxxAnolas Erropevos vom Kab

¥Y [radra wey of and ths Alydmrov Acov &ypaay, kal voulfovres Nuas exdo-
mpos wavras, Kal mpos lovALov Toy érl- eiv, nilwoov sbvodov Kardéoa, Kal ad-
skotov Tis ‘Péuns.—S. Athan. Apol. dv "IovAsov, ei BovaAorro, Kpithy ‘yeve-
cont. Arianos, § 20. Op., tom.i. p.140, ¢@a1.—Id., ibid. ]
B. | a [Theodoret. Eccl. Hist., lib. i‘. c-

* [Kad oi rept EvocBtov 5¢ mods *lov- 4. tom. iii. p. 71. ]

HICKES. rf

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, III.
SECT, IV.

1 [Apology
against the
Ayians. |

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

J { Latro-
cinium. |

218 The authority of Rome in the case of St. Athan. explained.

avtovs KataraPeiv THv “Pawpny éxéXevoe, Kal Tov Oetov ’Aba-
vao.ov eis THY Olknv éxdrece, “ according to the direction of
the ecclesiastical law commanded the Eusebians themselves
to come to Rome, and called the divine Athanasius to plead
his cause.” What ecclesiastical Jaw does Theodoret mean in
this place? No written law certainly ; but either that custom,
which was mentioned above, when we spoke of the confirma-
tion of synods: or he thus calls an unwritten custom, confirmed
by the use of the Church, which in any disagreement among
the Churches appointed as judge of the controversy any
bishop to whom one party had appealed, if the other party
were not unwilling, as was proved above. But that this
honour was chiefly given to the patriarchal sees, is worthy of
belief, and of all most especially to the bishop of Rome, who
had always some chief prerogative of dignity among his
brethren. Therefore Sozomen” and Socrates* intimate, that
on this occasion Pope Julius made mention of the privileges
of the Roman see, which vet the historians inform us® were
hissed at by the eastern bishops: but I have shewn that
there was another more weighty cause, which gave him right
to interpose his authority in this affair, and especially that
synodical Epistle, a copy of which we have in St. Athanasius,
and which (as the title shews) was sent® tols d7ravrayov Tis
KaboruKyns éexxrnolas émvcKorrocs, ‘to all the bishops of the
Catholic Church wheresoever.”’

And now, candid reader, you understand how much injury -
they do to Pope Julius and Pope Innocent, who assert that
they did, contrary to the custom of the Church, of their own
heads, and relying solely on their own authority, assume to
themselves the cognizance of the causes of St. Athanasius
and St. Chrysostom.

It remains that I speak of Flavianus. This illustrious
person was in the second council of Ephesus, by the con-
trivance of Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, who presided
over that conventicle of robbers! (as it was called), deprived
both of his see by deposition, and also by blows, of his life’.

» [Sozomen. Hist. Eccl., lib. iii.c. 10. § 3. Op., tom. i. p..125.]

p- 105. See above, p. 185. f Vide Evagr. Scholast. Hist. Eccl.,
© (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., lib. ii. e. 17. [lib. ii.] c. 18. p. 809, 321. Edit. Va-

p- 96. See above, ibid, ] les. [ed. Par. 1673. et pp. 810, 313.
a [Sozomen, ibid. } ed. Cantab., 1720. ]

e [S. Athan. Apol. cont. Arianos.

Flavianus did appeal from a council at Ephesus. 219

Liberatus writes thus concerning him (iz Breviario Caus@ casaveoy
Nest.*) ‘“ Flavianus, when sentence was pronounced against “yoo,
him, by his legates’ appealed in writing to the apostolic CHA? nt
see.” From what has been hitherto said upon the like cases ventne
of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostom, it appears that Libe- ey on
ratus spoke both after a new manner, because they did not lic see.]
use to speak so before him, as has been proved; and also
improperly, because Flavianus did not appeal to the bishop

of Rome only, but barely interposed an appeal: for the Acts

of the synod express it thus, after the sentence was pro-
nounced against Flavianus, then" “ Flavianus said, I appeal

from thee.” Which most short form of appeal ought by all

means to be interpreted by the common law of that time.

Now I have observed that it was the common law that men

should appeal from one synod to another; or if that hope

failed, that help should be sought from the bishops of the

more powerful Churches. There is no doubt but this was

what Flavianus meant: but it happened at that time, that

even the orthodox bishops yielding to impious violence, and
subscribing his condemnation, there were but a few who
behaved themselves like men: among these were the legates

of Pope Leo, men of exceeding piety and great courage,
Hilarus, who was afterwards pope, and Renatus; and as
Flavianus interposed his appeal, so did Hilarus his. protest.

Say the Acts of the council’, “ Hilarus deacon of the Church

of Rome said, it is gainsaid.” Therefore Flavianus despair-

ing of his cause, delivered him an appeal in writing, namely,

to that end, that when he returned to Leo, he might excite

him to cause by his authority, that so great a wickedness

should not go unpunished. ‘That this was Liberatus’ mean-

ing, such as have any knowledge in the ecclesiastical history of

those times will not deny, if they be careful not to postpone

the naked truth to their own prejudices. It is without

cause, that Cardinal Baronius* does, on occasion of this one

g [Flavianus autem, contra seprolata Cone. Chalced. Act. I. Concilia, tom.

sententia, per ejus legatos sedem apo-
stolicam appellavit libello.—Liberat.
Diac. in Breviario Cause Nest., cap.
xii. ap. Biblioth. Patr. Galland., tom.
xii. p. 140, D.]

h [@)daviavos emickowos elme* mapat-
Tovpmat oe.—Acta Synod. Ephes, ii. ap.

iv. col, 1164, D.]

i ["IAapos bidkovos THs “Papatwy éx-
KAnolas ele’ KovtpadikiToup, b éeotw,,
aT ereyerat.—Ibid, |

Kk [Decuit plane, decuit, inquam,
adeo digna et nobili causa tantum epi-
scopum promereri coronam martyrii:

220 The exaggerated language of Baronius on this subject.

arrenpix. Word appello in Liberatus, so immoderately cry out Jo
—°“"— triumphe ! but there are many of these juvenile expressions
in his Annals, at which I have sometimes been greatly
amazed: as when he says that God permitted the heavenly
man St. John Chrysostom to be overwhelmed with so great
calamities, that no one might doubt of the Roman pontiff’s
supremacy in the Church': and when no other cause of
all the misfortunes that have happened to any prince or
province is usually assigned in his Annals, but this one,
that either by word or deed they have offended the majesty
of the pope of Rome. I am not ignorant what and how
great deference the ancients paid toethe bishops of Rome ;
but as yet we have found no expressions in the ancient
fathers like these, and five hundred others in his Annals.
What, did it seem so great an argument to the cardinal
for establishing the monarchy of the Church of Rome, that
Liberatus said, Flavianus had appealed to the bishop of that
see? But he should consider that the contrary appears from
many, and those certain arguments, that ecclesiastical histo-
rians of more repute than Liberatus have made no mention
of this kind of appeals, neither in the case of this Flavianus,
nor any where else; that St. Athanasius, when he was so
often condemned, and endured so many afflictions in Egypt
and Asia, and was afterwards also sent to Treves, either to
lay him aside, or to banish him, did not so much as once in
so many years’ time make use of the expeditious remedy of
this appeal; that St. Chrysostom being condemned by an
unjust sentence appealed no whither but to a synod; that
neither of those fathers, when they relate their own misfor-
tunes, ever wrote that they had appealed to the Roman
bishops, Julius and Innocent; that those very bishops acted
nothing at all in this affair by a monarchical authority ; but
making use of the common right, procured the cause to be
reheard ; sent letters to the Churches, attesting the inno-
cence of those fathers, and their own communion with them ;
and then interceded with the emperors for them when in

decuit pariter et sanguine tanti marty- nimirum ab cecumenica synodo ad
ris consignatum et consecratum relin- | Romanum pontificem.—Baron. Ann.
qui titulum Apostolic sedis jurium, Eccl., ann. 449, num. 105. ]
Romanzque sedis primatus, appellandi 1 [Id., ibid, ann. 404, num. 21. ]

The interference of Rome was as an office of love. 221

banishment, as Julius did with Constantius™, and Innocent
with Honorius"; that when at first there began to arise in
the Church some light suspicion of this (pretended) right, by
which all matters are drawn to the Roman pontiff, the pious
bishops opposed themselves against it, as I have shewn of
St. Cyprian, and shall hereafter observe of divers synods.
Lastly, he should consider that this Liberatus lived in those
times®, in which there were not wanting such, as either of
their own accord ascribed that right to the Church of Rome,
or seconded her claim when she began to challenge it to her-
self. But we are not here enquiring what a few bishops of
Rome, perhaps more desirous of enlarging their power than
they ought, have said or thought, (of which I shall speak in
the sequel,) but what the universal Church of those times
concerning which we are speaking, both believed and prac-
tised. But that there may be no place for calumny, I will
shew as clearly as the light, that the ancient writers do
sometimes make use of the word appeal, when they speak
of those who desire help from any one, not judicially, but
in the way of charity, and as the Latin divines of the middle
age speak, charitative, “as an office of brotherly love.” The
fathers of the holy synod which assembled upon the expulsion
of St. Athanasius, after they have besought all the bishops
to give St. Athanasius? the right hand of fellowship, to con-
dole the injury done him, and to testify their indignation
against the authors of his sufferings, add these words, vuds
yap éxdixous KaTa THs ToLavTns adiKias émiKadovpeBa, UToMp-
VHTKOVTES TO ATrOTTOALKOY, EEdpaTE TOV TroVvNpoV EE LUaV avTar,
which were to be translated thus: “for we appeal to you as
avengers of so great injustice, calling to your mind that of
the Apostle, Put away from among yourselves that wicked
person.” But this synodical Epistle was not particularly
sent to the bishop of Rome, nor to any other of those pre-
lates who had then most power in the Church; but gene-
rally (as appears from the title which was set down above)4
to all the bishops of the whole Catholic Church. For which
reason, after this letter St. Athanasius adds these words:

m [Sozom. Hist. Ecel., lib. iii. c. 10. p [S. Athan. Apol. cont. Arianos, §
p- 105. ] 19. Op., tom. i. p. 189, E.]

n [(Id., ibid., lib. viii. c. 28. p. 363.] 4 [See above, p. 218. ]

° TAD. 554.] :

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, III.

SECT. IV.

222 In the primitive ages appeals were petitions for help ;

a \ C9 AN a Se \ , \ wees) s
arrenvix. Taira pev oi aro THs AvyvTTou Tpos TavTas Kat Tpos ’IovLov

NO. V1.

Tov émicxoTov ths “Papns', “these things the Egyptians
(wrote) as well to all, as to Julius bishop of Rome.” If I
had a mind to cavil, I could say that the holy synod ap-
pealed from a factious synod to any bishop; for that may
be implied in those words, éxdicous érixadovpcba, “ we appeal
to as avengers.” The Greeks call an appeal* éxxdyTOos,
or ékxAntos Sixn, and to appeal émuxadretc@a. Observe St.
Paul’s words in the Acts, Kaicapa émixadodpat, “1 appeal

Acts 25.11, unto Cesar ;” and often in the twenty-fifth chapter. But

21, 25.

who could bear any one that should assert that it was lawful
by equal right to appeal to every single bishop from the sen-
tence of a synod, by an appeal properly so called? Let us
acknowledge therefore, that émixadeio@ar, “to appeal,” in this
synodical letter, and appellare in Liberatus, and in like
places, which very seldom occur, ought to be understood of
the imploring of that help which Christian charity and the
pastoral care is obliged to yield to the injured. And there-
fore Pope Celestine in his Epistle to the clergy of Con-
stantinople, writes thus concerning the flight of St. Athana-
sius to the Roman seet: év tovT@ TH Opove, says he, evpe .col-
vovias avaTravaw, ad ov del Tois KaBoNLKOIs yevvaTat BonGeLa,
“he found the consolation of communion im this see, from
whence the Catholics always received help.” It is evidently
so, as Celestine says: they who fled for refuge to the more
powerful sees, as soon as they had proved the integrity of
their faith, were received to brotherly communion, and had
letters given them, (the Ecclesiastical History calls them
tuTrous, “ letters of form,” and vrappynovactixa ypampata, and
ovotatixa", “apologetic and commendatory letters,”) as evi-
dences and credentials of their orthodox faith: and then
having received that pledge as it were of hospitality, where-
ever they came they were entertained as brethren by the
Catholics. Therefore this “communication of peace, or ap-

r (Id., ibid., p. 140, B.] ‘ (Ceelestini papze Epist. ad Cler.
* Or the person appealed to.—Vide et Pop. Constant. ap. Cone. Ephes.
Bud. Com. Ling. Gr., p. 67, [where it Acta; pars i. c. 19. Concilia, tom. iii.
is said, €cxAntos ‘is dicitur qui appel- col. 921, E.]
latur, ad quem provocatur,’’ and Plu- u [See Suicer. Thes. Eccl. in voc.
tarch. Apothegm. Lacon.,tom. ii. p.215, cvoratixds, tom. ii. col, 1194. }
C. is referred to. ]

which was granted out of Christian charity. 223

peal of fraternity,” (as Tertullian speaks*,) is by Celestine
rightly styled xowwvias avdaravois, “consolation of com-
munion,” as what was a mere office of humanity, flowing
from the fountain of Christian charity. For this reason
Sidonius says, that Lupus, bishop of Troyes, a prelate
formerly of great authority in France, and as he himself
calls him, bishop of bishops, “did as it were from a cer-
tain watch-tower of charity oversee all the members of the
Church of God’.” And Pope Julius owns, that he himself
was led by charity to hear the cause of St. Athanasius, and
not by that vain and empty arrogancy which the holy fathers
so much detest. Julius’s words are in his answer to the
bishops of the council of Antioch’: “ What,” says he, “is it
not an argument of charity, that we sent presbyters to par-
take of the griefs of the afflicted, and to exhort those to come
hither who had written to me,” (he means the Eusebians, who
themselves had brought the cause before him,) “ that, contro-
versies ended, all things may be composed as soon as may
be; and neither our brethren suffer nor you be ill spoken of
by any.”

I have said enough concerning the appeals of St. Athana-
sius, St. Chrysostom, and Flavianus, which are used to be so
much urged by the patrons of our modern liberty, on account
of that very great authority which those holy martyrs (for
so I may deservedly call them) had in the Church. I will
add nothing in particular concerning Theodoret: for the
reason is the same in his case and all others: and I never
had the fortune to see in Greek that Epistle of his to Pope
Leo*: which yet how important a matter it is, I am sorry to
say, as often as I have experienced it’ in perusing the monu- ' ;how
ments of ecclesiastical history. Now to what has been said pu" ae
above I will add this, that it is absurd, when the question is ee in
concerning the ordinary right of ecclesiastical discipline, to

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, IIt.
SECT. IV.

x [Communicatio pacis, et appellatio
fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitali-
tatis.—Tert. de Presc. Her., c. 20. Op.,
p- 209, A.]

y {Quoted above, p. 191, note b. |

2 [4 ovx) aydrns ear) yvadpiocpa mpec-
Burépovs amooreiAa oupmabety Tots
mTdoxXouTL; MpoTpeparbat Tos ypapay-
tas edOeiv, va mavra OaTTov AVoW Aa-
Bévra SiopAwOjvar Suvnbh, Kat pynKeére

bate of adeAcol Nudv macxXwol, pire
buas tives SiaBadAAwow. —S. Athan.
Apol. cont. Arianos. Op., tom. i. p. 141,
C.

: [This letter was first published in
Greek in the works of Theodoret, tom.
il. p. 984. Sirmond, Par. 1642, and is
given in those of St. Leo, Epist. 52.
tom. i. col. 941. Venet., 1756.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

224 The appeal of St. Athanasius was one of necessity.

bring in those instances which happened at a time when
violence and injury were every where predominant, and all
the rights of the Church overwhelmed: for this was a more
immediate and a truer cause why St. Athanasius betook
himself to the west, because he could do no otherwise.
Within the Church havoc was made by the Arians, men
violent, wicked, and upon all accounts detestable. Without
the Church the rage of Constantius, an heretical prince,
wasted all the Churches throughout the east. The orthodox
were every where deposed, sent into banishment, sacrificed ;
the Arians had a license to do whatever they had a mind
with impunity: and they had a mind to do all things that
were grievous and destructive to the orthodox. Therefore
St. Athanasius is dethroned, and required to be given up as
a sacrifice by most cruel men; what should he do? which
way could he turn himself? whence should he seek for
help? should this admirable man then have never stirred
his foot out of those caverns in which he is said to have
absconded so many years? and shall there be such as boast
of it as a great matter, that St. Athanasius went from Egypt
and out of the east to Rome? Indeed the extraordinary
indulgence of our most merciful and great God towards
the Church of Rome appeared, when He appointed that
and most of the western Churches, as bulwarks for so many
ages against those pestilences of the east, Arius, Apollinaris,
Nestorius, Eutyches, and others: for although there was
then another reason, yet both when St. Chrysostom was
expelled out of the city of Constantinople, and when Flavia-
nus was beaten to death at Ephesus, the condition of the
eastern Church was not much, either more glorious or more
happy, than in the life-time of St. Athanasius. It was but
just therefore, that in their afflictions holy men should turn
their eyes to the west, when there both the orthodox faith
flourished, (on which account St. Basil congratulates them
so often”,) and their princes were of sound faith and great
piety: such as were the emperors Constantine the younger,
and Constans, who laboured in St. Athanasius’ cause, and
Honorius, who did the same in St. Chrysostom’s. But what
things were then done by good men, partly such as were
5 [See S. Basilii Epist. 66, 68—70, 89—92. Op., tom. ili. ]

Extraordinary events call for extraordinary measures. 225

drove by necessity to make use of all the methods of ex- casavnox
tremity; and partly such whose bowels were moved with pet
charity and compassion, to attempt any thing for the relief CUA" i
of the afflicted ; to make such things a perpetual law of the
Church, is perfect madness and infatuation: for be it granted
that Pope Julius and Innocent transgressed the bounds of
their lawful power, usurped a right over their brethren till
then never made use of, and that (you may add if you please)
a right which was not lawful: yet they were not without
reason for what they did, when such was the condition of the
times, that as the physicians speak, desperate remedies were
to be applied to desperate diseases. Therefore where the
ordinary right ceased, there was room for and indeed need
of the duties of extraordinary charity. They are those which
the Greek sages, as was observed in the preceding chapter,
called duties cata Trepictacu, “in extremity,” as it were ex-
torted from them by the very necessity of the times. And
as often as a like tempest hes upon either the State or the
Church, it is necessary for good men to do many things
which are inconsistent with lawful order; yet because those
things are done for the preservation of the State or of the
Church, they are not only excused and tolerated, but ac-
counted worthy of the highest praise. To convene the people,
go to them, and harangue them in public assembly, was law-
ful at Rome only for the magistrates ; for others to attempt
it was a crime, and that punished with death: and the
same law ever obtained in all well-instituted governments:
yet Menenius Agrippa did this, and was commended for it
by all men: for the disturbance of the commonwealth by
sedition exacted that duty from him as a good subject. Who
can deny but it was an offence against the majesty of the
Roman people, to call the populace to arms, set himself at
the head of them, and kill a citizen, and even a tribune of
the people? Yet Publius Scipio Nasica, when Tiberius Grac-
chus had raised a sedition, because Mucius the consul acted
too slowly, commanding all that desired the safety of the
republic to follow him, pursued Gracchus into the capitol,
and killed him; and this action of Scipio’s was by Mucius
himself not only defended by many decrees of the senate,
but even extolled. Now if any one should produce these in-
HICKES, Gg

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

226 Extraordinary measures are not to be regarded as the rule.

stances to one, that were enquiring after the lawful form of
the Roman government, and the ordinary law of the city,
and should refer such actions to the accustomed right, would
you think such a man deserved to be thought in his wits,
and not rather a madman to be carried about for a sight ?
and yet they evidently do this, who would form arguments
for establishing the right of appeals from a few instances of
good men flying for refuge to the west, and to Rome, when
their affairs were desperate in the east: and contrary to the
precept of Pope Honorius, draw into ecclesiastical doctrines
what has been practised by a few bishops (I speak of those of
elder times) for the sake of the public good, and by a certain
dispensation, as divines speak. I wish they would rather call
that rule to mind, which was cited above from St. Athana-
sius°, and deservedly commended, ‘‘What things are written or
done by dispensation, ought not to be maliciously interpreted.”

And thus much for the matter of fact, as far as it relates
to those times concerning which we are speaking. Iam to
speak next of the matter of right, to treat accurately of
which, by reason of the inventions of some‘, wherein there
is more subtlety than truth, requires another dissertation,
in which the impartial reader shall have abundant satisfac-
tion as to all those objections that are usually made. The
truth of the matter, to give the sum of it in short, is this:
before the council of Sardica we do not meet with the least
word of any express provision in this matter, but it appears
that the Catholic Church so made use of that right that the
practice of extra-provincial appeals was altogether unknown,
This virtue the use of communicatory letters had, as I have
already shewn®: for no person could be absolved who was
bound by an ecclesiastical censure but by the very bishop
that had bound him. To what purpose therefore was it to
appeal? unless perhaps the appeal was made from the bishop
and presbyters of one Church to an assembly of more
bishops, and from thence to a synod of comprovincial
bishops, where the bishop who was appealed from was also
present. The rights of patriarchal sees were unknown in

© [See above, p, 132, note n. | D, sqq.- ]
4 [Bellarminus de Summo Pont., e | See above, pp. 192, sqq. |
lib. ii, ec. 21. Op., tom. i. p. 330. col. ii.

The provisions of the Apostolic and Nicene canons. 227

the first ages. And that the Church of Rome had no ex-
traordinary right in this behalf is evidently demonstrated
from the example of Marcion, which was discussed above.
Yet I do not deny that there were some even in those times,
who being condemned by a sentence in their own, went to
the neighbouring provinces, and sometimes also to Rome,
that they might obtain peace. For that that was done
sometimes is evident even from hence, that in the thirty-
third canon (apostolic as they call it‘) but certainly most
ancient, this reason is alleged why it is so expressly pro-
vided that no stranger be received without the commenda-
tory letters of his own bishops: 7oA\a yap Kata ovvap-
mayiny yiveoO@a, “that many things are done by stealth.”
The sense of which words is, that those bishops who admit
such wanderers without communicatory letters, and assume
to themselves the hearing of their causes, are often deceived
by being stolen upon unawares. For which reason also
St. Cyprian, in that most noble Epistle to Pope Cornelius,
alleges this canon of the ancient Church, and calls it just
and righteous against those desperate strollers and wretched
men (as he styles them) who went from Africa to Rome:
“ Let every one’s cause be heard there where his crime was
committed.” By which canon all appeals both to Rome, and
any whither else out of the bounds of the province, are so
plainly forbidden, that they had need have a great confi-
dence in the subtlety of their wit who are not afraid to en-
counter with so manifest a truth. There are only twenty
canons of the council of Nice now extant; and it is certain
that only those were from the beginning put into the body
of canons which was made use of by both the eastern and
western Church. In them there is not the least word con-
cerning the right of appeals: and in the fourth canon, which
is concerning the creation of bishops, are these words: 70
dé Kdpos TOV ywouevav yiverBar Kal Exdotny érrapylay TO
petpotroNitn", “the authority and confirmation of all things

f (Canon. Apost. xxxii. (al. xxxiii.) | diatur ubi est erimen admissum, &c.—
ap. Concilia, tom. i. col. 32, B; quoted 8S. Cypr. Epist. lv. ad Cornelium, Op.,
above, p. 201, note z. } p- 86. ]

g [Nam cum statutum sit ab omni- h [Concil. Nicen. Canon iy. ap.
bus nobis, et zequum sit pariter ac jus- -Concil., tom. ii. p. 36, A. |
tum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic au-

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. IIL

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

228 The council of Antioch provided for rehearing causes.

done in every province belongs to the metropolitan.” From
whence I collect that the rights of patriarchal sees, con-
cerning which the councils of later ages have made so many
decrees, were not as yet enough known, although the sixth
canon of the same fathers confirms those sees which were
already approved of by former custom’. Not long after
followed the council of Antioch, the fourth canon of which
declares*, that “ deposed bishops have no other hope of resti-
tution left but in another synod ;” and farther, the following
canons enjoin that this synod consist only of the compro-
vincial bishops, or of those of the next province. The fif-
teenth canon provides thus!: “If a bishop accused of any
crimes shall be condemned by all the bishops of the pro-
vince, and they shall all pronounce one unanimous sentence
against him, let not his cause be reheard before others, but
let the sentence of the bishops of the province continue firm
and valid.” And it is enjomed by the preceding canon”, if
the comprovincial bishops do not agree about the cause of
any bishop, that the metropolitan of the next province, in
conjunction with other bishops, have the cause heard before
them. I know that in the cause of St. Chrysostom some
wicked men, who alleged this canon with an ill design, were
repulsed with that exception, that semi-Arians, the sworn
enemies of the great Athanasius, had been the authors of
it". And indeed they deserve everlasting infamy who gave
so much trouble and vexation to so great men. But the
case of the canons themselves is different from that of the

i [rad apxata €0n Kpareitw, Ta ev
Aiytare kal AiBin kal MevramdAc, do-
te Tov “Adekavdpelas emickomoy mavTwy
ToUTwy exe Thy etovolav* ered) Kal
T@ ev TH PHuUn emiokdr@ TovTO avynbEs
eorw, «.T.A.—Id., Canon vi. p. 36, C.]

k [et tis emtcxomos tmd ouvddov ka-
Oaipedels... TOAUNT ELEY Te mpakat Tis
Aetroupyias . - Mnkete efdy elvar avT@
und ev ETEPH pened éAmida amrokatau-
OTATEWS, MOE ATOAOYLas xdpav x ew.—
Cone. Antioch., (A.D. 841.) Canon iv.
Concilia, tom. ii. col. 588, C.]

! [ef tus emloxomos emt Tio eyKAT Ma
ow Karnyopnbels, KpiOein bd may Tov
TOY eV TH emapxia emirKdTav, TAVTES
TE Timpovor Mlav Kat avrod eteveryoly
Wipov’ TovTov enue TL Tap ET Epois duca-
Seca, GAG every BeBalay Thy cvp-

pwvov Tay em THs emapxias emickdmwy
anédpaci.—Id., Canon xy. ibid., col.
592, D.]

m[... 0k TH ayla cuvddw Toy THs
MntpoméAews eriaKkoToy ard TIS TANTLO-
xépov emapxlas merakadeis0a Erepovs
TWAS TOUS emMLKpWovYTas, Kal THY auplio-
Biatncw diadvdoovtas, ToD BeBaiaoa ovv
Tots THS ETapXlas TO TapioTauevoy.—
Id., Canon xiv. ibid., C.]

” [kavdvev ... ods eb€omiaay of Tea-
gepdkovTa Tay “Apelov Kowwrikay...
kal odTos wey 6 Kava, as Tapdvouos brd
Tapavouwy TeBels eEwotpakiabn ev Sap-
Sikh b7d ‘Pwuatwy, cad ITad@y, kal *1A-
Auplwy, kal Makeddévwv, kat “EAAadixay.
Pallad. Vita S. Joan. Chrys., Op.,
tom. xiii. p. 31, E.]

The council of Sardica; not a general one. 229

author of them. For which reason the ancient Church,
which did not refuse the good laws even of the worst
princes, did with great consent, as well in the east as in
the west, ascribe so much authority to the canons of this
council, that she both immediately placed them in the an-
cient body of her canon law, and afterwards constantly
continued the same honour to them. But of this more
elsewhere.

The council of Antioch was soon followed by that of
Sardica, which was always of great authority among the
orthodox: for it confirmed the Nicene faith, and absolved
St. Athanasius from the senseless calumnies thrown upon
him. Yet that the ancients did not account that a general
council is commonly known, to such at least as are not
ignorant of the names of the seven general councils, known
almost to every body. For though the bishops of both the
eastern and western empire were called to it; and accord-
ingly, as St. Athanasius tells us°, it was celebrated by a great
concourse of bishops; yet no man doubts but that very few
of the eastern bishops were present at the drawing up of
the canons; which without dispute was the reason why the
ancients never accounted this a general council. So that
it is very strange, that in the late editions of the councils it
has a fictitious and false title given it?: but what is the aim
of this additional undertaking, and of many other sinister
attempts like this, even such as are half blind may see clearly.
I have already observed how different the condition of the
eastern and western Churches was in those times under the
reign of Constantius ; when those of the west, by the peculiar
mercy of Christ, preserved the true faith, though not every
where, yet at least in the chief cities, and especially at
Rome; whereas the eastern Churches being torn to pieces
in a miserable manner, openly encouraged manifold heresies,
and retained the orthodox faith but in few places. For which
reason Hosius of Corduba, and the other holy western fathers
of that council, who before in the case of St. Athanasius had
more than once observed how much assistance there was in

°[S. Athan. Apol. cont. Arianos. cum, Concilia, Binii, tom. i. p. 433.
Op., tom. i. p. 154, C.] Colon. 1606. }
P [Concilium Sardicense Gicumeni-

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL,
CHAP. IIL.

SECT, IV,

230 The council of Sardica appointed an appeal to Rome.

arrenvix. the authority of the bishop of Rome, that they might open
xO **— that asylum as it were to those of the western empire,
against the cruel persecution of the Arians, introduced a new
law: for they decreed, that if any bishop were deposed, he
might appeal to Rome, and desire a rehearing of his cause
before the bishop of that see. That this was a new law
appears even from the words of Hosius, who was the author
and adviser of it. In the fourth canon it is thus written‘:
“ Bishop Hosius said, . . . But if any bishop hath been ad-
judged in any cause, and thinks he has good reason to be
allowed a rehearing, if you approve of it, let us honour the
memory of St. Peter, that the bishop of Rome be written to,
either by those who tried the cause, or also by other bishops
who dwell in the neighbourhood; and if he give his judg-
ment that the trial be renewed, let it be renewed, and let
him appoint judges: but if he approve of such a cause, that
those things which are already done may not be acted over
again, whatever the bishop of Rome decrees shall be con-
firmed. If therefore all of you approve of this, let it be
decreed. The synod answered, We approve of it.” If all
appeals had been brought to the see of Rome by divine
right, as is now loudly contended; or this right had been
ascribed to that see by the Nicene canons, what need had
there been of this canon, and a few others which follow it ?
or who does not understand, that the thing was introduced
by Hosius, concerning which nothing had been decreed to
that day? For this is most evidently what Hosius would
have then understood when he said, “If you approve of it,
let us honour the memory of St. Peter.” Whether it was
the intent of the fathers of the council of Sardica to oblige
all the bishops both of the east and west by their decrees I
will not rashly determine. Such was certainly the condition

a > a
4 ["Octos éertokotos cime... i dt apa avTds mapacyxo. ef SE wh cvorHva 8d-

Tis emickémwy ey tive mpayywaret dd
kataxplvec@a, kal brodapBaver Eavtdy
py cabpdv, GAAG KaArdy Exe Td TPAyLA,
iva Kal adOis n Kplots dvavewOh* ef Soret
Dua TH aya, Mérpov to amoardéAov
Ti wVhuny Tiwhowpmev, Kal ypadjrvia
Tapa ToUTwY TaY KpwayTwY “lovAiw TE
emioKdr@ ‘Paéuns, Sore Sid TOV yertyiv-
Twy TH éwmapxla emiokdrwyv, ci Sol, ava-
vewOjvat Td SicacrHpioy, kal eriyyemovas

VaTat TOLOUTOY avTOU civar Td TpPAYUA, ws
madwdikias xpyfew, TA Arak Kexpyueva
Bh avadveoOa, Ta Se dvTa, BEBaa Tvy-
xdverv.—Cone.Sardic. (A.D. 347.) Can.
iii. Concilia, tom. ii. col. 660, B, C, D.
The concluding words “Si ergo hoc
omnibus placet, statuatur. Synodus
respondit: Placet;” are found in the
Latin version of Isidorus Mercator.—
Ibid., col. 681, D, E.]

Its decrees were not admitted by the Eastern bishops. 231

of those times, that it was to be wished by godly men that casavsoy

the force of that decree might extend not only to the ex- ee
treme part of the east bordering upon the west, whither the {02)""

SECT. IV.
empire of old Rome reached, but universally through both

empires. But when I have proved that that council was
never reckoned among the general councils, to imagine that
decrees made by the western bishops had the force of an
obligatory law in the east, is more than a childish mistake.
The council of Antioch had been celebrated a little before,
which returned a very sharp answer to the letters of Pope
Julius concerning the restoring of St. Athanasius, decreed in
the council of Rome. ‘They wrote back to Julius,” says
Sozomen, “a declamatory letter, composed in the style of a
pleading at law, very full of irony, and not destitute of the
severest threats.” They added afterwards‘, that “as they had
not opposed themselves against the bishop of Rome when he
had excommunicated Novatian,” so he had no right of con-
tradicting them whenever they cast any of their own bishops
out of the Church. In the same letter, whereas the oriental
bishops seemed to yield to the bishop of Rome by way of
deference, ra 7peaBeia, that is, some prerogative of honour‘,
as to the first-born among his brethren, because Rome “ had
been from the beginning the school of the Apostles and me-
tropolis of piety,” they presently shewed openly with what
intent they said this, adding these words, ‘“ Although they
came from the east to Rome, who had taught them the
Christian religion,” which was plainly overthrowing the
former words; therefore Sozomen rightly says that the
Romans were commended in that letter by an irony. But
that which follows does more shew their meaning; for they
openly take back the honour which they seemed to have
given, and recall their grant ; for they add", “that they desire

© [avréypavay “lovaAl@ KexadAremnue-
yyy Twa, Kal SikaviK@s cuvTeTaypevny
emiaToAnyv, eipwvelas TE TOAATS avd-
TAcwY, Kal aTELATs ovK Gpmotpovoay Bet-
vorarns.—Sozom. Eccles. Hist., lib. iii.
c. 8. p. 103. j

® [avOiorapevp Se Tors Sedoyuevas,
ravavtla mponydpevoay. emel kal rovs
mpd avTav ava Thy Ew lepéas ovdev av-
reimely ioxupifovto, Huika Navariavds
THs ‘Pawpatwy exxdncias nadby.—ld.,
ibid. ]

t [ pépew wey yap maar pidorimiay Thy
‘Pwualwy exkAnolay ev Tois ypaupacw
Gmoddyouv, ws amroaré\wv ppoyTioTh-
piov, kal evoeBelas untpdwodrw ek apxijs
yeyevnuevnv’ «i Kal ex THs ew évednun-
cay adtij of Tod Bdyparos eionyntal.—
Id., ibid. ]

u [ov mapa TodTo be Ta Sevrepeia pe-
pew hklouy, Ore wh meyeBer 7) mANIEL eK -
KAnulas mAeoverTovow, @s aperh Kal
mpoawperer vinavtes.—Id., ibid. |

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

232 The Orientals did not admit the Western bishops to impose

that they might not therefore be postponed to the second
place, if they did not so much abound in the greatness and
plenty of their Church :” pleasant men indeed who so yielded
the principal place to the bishop of Rome as yet not to suffer
themselves to be put back to the second place. But if no
one is second or third, as it is with those who stand round in
a ring, neither can any one be first. Theirs was a like merry
conceit, or rather ambition and emulation, who in the canon
of the council of Constantinople and Chalcedon*, which gives
Constantinople the honour of the first see, weta Tov Padyns,
“after the bishop of Rome,” pretended that the word pera,
“after,” was so to be understood that new Rome was not
postponed to the old; which was not witty, but plainly ridi-
culous, for there can be no order if there be not some one
first for the rest to follow. Therefore Zonaras’ does justly
explode this interpretation. But what the oriental bishops
add in the same Epistle is plainly contumelious: os aperH
Kal Tpoapéces vixavtes, “as excelling in virtue and good
manners.” Ido not mention these things with that intent
as to approve of them, (for I remember by whom they are
written, and for what end’,) but to shew that the oriental
bishops had then and always so much spirit that they would
have received those canons of the council of Sardica with
ereat clamours if any one had obtruded this new right upon
them. Neither would I have that understood of the wicked
only and such as defend heretical doctrines, but also of the
orthodox and truly pious. Who ever lived that was more
illustrious for piety and true humility than the great St.
Basil? Who more worthy of all Christian praise than Gre-
gory Nazianzen? But they at least who have read the
Epistles of these fathers know what was their opinion, what
and how just their complaints of the arrogancy, pride, and
unreasonable desire of trav dutivxav, of the occidental bishops,

* [roy wey Tor Kavotavtivouvmércws ovx’ bToBiBacpody Tis Tyas SndAobdv ve-

énickotmov €xew TA mMpecBeia THS TYULTS
mera Tov THs ‘Pduns erioxoToy, Sid Td
elvat avthy véay ‘Pdéunv.—Cone. Con-
stant. Canon iii. ap. Concil., tom. ii.
col. 1126, D. See Cone. Chalcedon.
Canon xxviii. ap. Conc., tom. iv. col.
1692, D. 1693, A, B.]

Y [rTwes wey ody Thy peta mpdbeoty

vonkaow, GAA Thy MeTaXpovoY THs TAav-
THS TvoTaoCEws, K.T-A. See Zonaras in
Can. ili. Cone. Constant. ap. Bevereg.
Pand. Can. p. 90, A, sqq. ] :

* {The bishops of this council were
Arians, and were opposing the Church
of Rome for having received St. Atha-
nasius into communion. |

canons on them; they only allowed a precedence to Rome. 233

that is, of the bishop of Rome, as I shall presently prove by
producing their most modest words*. The cecumenical coun-
cil of Constantinople was orthodox, of whose Epistle to the
Roman synod Theodoret” gives a copy in his fifth book not
unlike that of the Antiochian fathers; for this also is ironi-
cal, and pretends one meaning, when being well considered
it has another, msomuch that it easily appears that even
orthodox and holy men in the east did upon terms of so
much equality court the majesty of the Church of Rome as
yet to think themselves in full possession of their liberty,
nor to be any way inferior to that see but only with re-
spect to order and precedence. Therefore Zonaras and the
other intepreters of the canon law of the Greeks, as often as
they dispute concerning the right of appeals, or interpret the
canons of the council of Sardica*, do most grievously com-
plain of the Romans and their corrupt interpretations. And
to this not general council of Sardica they oppose two gene-
ral councils, those of Constantinople and Chalcedon4, which
ascribe the same rights to the bishops of new as to those
of old Rome. And by the ninth canon of the council of
Chalcedon all appeals [are referred‘'] to the royal city of
Constantinople: which is to be understood of the provinces
of the eastern empire. But they who here seek a difficulty
where there is none, and bid us go to Pope Nicholas for a
true interpretation of that canon’, should invent a few in-

a [This part of Casaubon’s treatise e [After providing for the settlement

was not printed. |

» [Epist. Synodica Concil. Constant.
ap. Theodoret., Hist. Eecl., lib. v. c.
9. pp. 203—207 ; aud Concilia, tom. ii.
col, 1143, sqq. |}

¢ {Zonaras in Can. Cone. Sardic. iii.,
v.; Comment. in Canones, p. 365, 367.
Par. 1618. ]

4 [ra mpeoBeia Tis Tysts meTa TOY THIS
‘Pans éerickomov. (Cone. Const. Can.
lii. Concilia, tom. ii. col. 1126, D.) In
confirming this the council of Chalce-
don says of the fathers of Constantino-
ple, 7G Opdvw Tijs mpecButépas ‘Pduns

- of TaTepes eikdtws Grodeddkact To
mpeoBeia’ of themselves CeopiAéorarou
émickovot Ta loa mpecBeta amrévemav
T@THS veas Pduns ayiwrdtw Opdyy'—
Cone. Chalced. Can. xxviii. Concilia,
tom. iv. col.1692, D; and Zonaras’ Com-
ment, p. 71.]

HICKES,

of differences by the bishop, or the pro-
vincial synod, the canon says: ei 6€
kal mpos Toy THS avTTS emapxias nTpo-
ToAIT Hy, erlakoros 7) KAnpLKdS aupicBn-
Tony, KaTahapBaveTw i) Toy Ekapxov Tijs
dioixnoews, 7) Tov THS BaotAevovons Kwy-
otavTivouTércws Opdvoy, Kal em aiT@
dixavécOw.—Cone. Chalced., Can. ix.
Concilia, tom. iv. col. 1185, C. ]

f [The translation in the third edition
was, ‘‘all appeals to the royal city of
Constantinople are rejected,’’ which was
evidently contrary to the meaning of the
author; the original is ‘ rejiciuntur.”’ |

8 | Nicolaus I. in Epist. ad Michael.
Imp. scribit, per primatem diceceseos
nullum alium significari posse, quam
episcopum Romanum.— Bellarminus
de Rom. Pont., lib. ii, c. 22, Op., tom.
i, p. 331, A.; etibid., E.]

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. IIL.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

234 The canon of Sardica was not acted on in the East ;

stances at least to prove that in those times the decree of
the council of Sardica had taken place in the east. What!
will they deny that after that council many bishops were
deposed in Asia, Syria, and Egypt, some of them justly and
some unjustly? Out of all the plenty of examples with which
histories furnish us, let them produce one at least of a bishop
that made use of the benefit of the Sardican decree, or in the
least made mention of it. But this was like to be a remedy
of general expediency, which all would make use of, who
throughout the east should either really suffer or think they
suffered any injury. Justinian afterwards either altered or
explained the ninth canon of the council of Chalcedon (No-
vella cxxili. capite xxil.)", the meaning of which is thus ex-
pressed by Julian, (capite cecelxiv.)': “If any one has a mind
to go against his metropolitan, let the patriarch of that coun-
try determine the business.” But the Greek text adds: ov-
devos pépovs Kata THs Wihov adtod avTiréyew Svvapevov*,
“neither party having power to contradict his sentence.”
Therefore neither could they appeal to Rome: nor was this a
new right introduced by Justinian ; but an assertion of an old
accustomed right, which had long prevailed in the oriental
Churches. And indeed what and how great a difference
there was in those ancient times between the authority of
any cecumenical council and that of the council of Sardica,
no one either better understood or can at this day more
certainly inform us, than Pope Zosimus and his two suc-

cessors, Boniface and Celestine'. About seventy years after

the celebration of the council of Sardica, it came into Pope
Zosimus’s mind to try to obtain of the African bishops this
very right of appeals to the see of Rome, concerning which I
am disputing; and to procure that the Sardican decrees made
in this behalf should be allowed the force of an ecclesiastical
law in Africa: for this end he sends into that country such
as were even then called legates a datere, furnished with ample

h [Auth. Collat. ix. Tit. vi. Novell. k [Auth. Collat., ibid. ]
123. c. 22. ap. Corp. Jur. Civ. ] ' [See the Acts of the sixth council
* [Si contra metropolitanum adire of Carthage, A.D. 419. Concilia, tom.
quispiam velit; regionis illius patri- iii. col. 441, sqq., et Concilium Africa-
archa negotium discernat.—JulianiAn- num, § 101, sqq. ibid., col. 528, E,
tecessoris Novell. Epitome, p. 411. sqq.j
Herdez, 1567.]

nor known in Africa; Zosimus wishes to enforce it. 235

instructions. If the Catholic Church of those times had
looked upon that of Sardica as a general council, the con-
clusion of the cause had been very easy with the catholic
bishops of Africa: for no one could doubt of the meaning of
that council, at least none who had looked never so little into
its acts and canons. But Zosimus very well knew that his
legates alleging the canons of Sardica for the obtaining of
this right would likely be repulsed with this exception, that
the authority of that council was not of sufficient weight in
the Catholic Church to be able to decide a matter of that im-
portance. Indeed Zosimus did nicely and wisely foresee
what was altogether likely to happen: for as yet the name
of this council was at that time so little known among the
Churches of Africa, that I know not whether in all that
country there could be any one found who had so much as
heard of it. This is evident from that deep silence concern-
ing the Sardican council in so many councils held at Car-
thage upon this very subject; where there was not one found
among all those bishops (who were sometimes more than two
- hundred, and the very flower of all the African province) that
gave the least indication that he knew any thing of that
council. Nor will this seem strange to any one who recol-
lects that St. Augustine himself, undoubtedly the chief of all
the prelates of Africa in that age, knew nothing at all of this
pious and orthodox assembly of the Sardican fathers. Read
his 158rd Epistle™, and the 34th chapter of his third book
against Cresconius®, you will there find that this most learned
father, notwithstanding his great knowledge in ecclesiastical
affairs, had not heard so much as the least report concerning
any other council of that name, but a certain conventicle of
Arians, who from that city sent a letter into Africa to the
Donatists. Therefore Zosimus, that he might obtain what
he desired, saying nothing of the council of Sardica, did with
very great cunning insert the name of the council of Nice
in the memorial given to his legates when they were going
away. His words are in that writing’: “ For a fuller con-

m [S. August. Epist. xliv. ad Eleu- Op., tom. ix. col. 454.]
sium, Op., tom. ii. col. 103, E, F. ed. ° [Verba canonum, que in pleniorem
Ben. | firmitatem huic commonitorio inservi-
" (Id. cont. Crescon., lib. iii, c. 34. mus. Ita enim dixerunt, dilectissimi

CASAUBON .
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. IT.

SECT. IV.

236 Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, urge the canon of

Appenpix, firmation we have in this memorial inserted the words of the

_NO. VI.

canons: for our most beloved brethren in the council of Nice
said thus:” then he adds the canon, which no man ever
doubted to be the seventh of the council of Sardica. His
legates arrive in Africa; a council is convened at Carthage;
they lay before the council the purport of their commission ;
all the fathers being astonished at the name of the council of
Nice, with the canons of which they were well acquainted,
and had never read any thing in them concerning appeals to
the bishop of Rome, by a memorable example of piety and
modesty shewed how much honour and deference they paid
to the most holy Nicene council: for they resolve, because
Zosimus in vindication of his right to the appeals of the trans-
marine Churches to him, had produced canons of the council
of Nice, which were not to be found in any of their African
copies, before they would decide a controversy of so great
importance, to send legates to the patriarchs of the east,
especially to those of Alexandria and Constantinople, whose
libraries were better furnished, that they might be more fully
assured of the faithfulness of their own copies. In the mean
time, while the truth was yet unknown, they paid this honour
to Pope Zosimus, that they kept all rights suspended ac-
cording to the mandates of his legates. While the council’s
legates were going and returning, some years passed away ;
in the mean while Zosimus dies, and Pope Boniface succeeds
him. But neither did he see an end of the business begun
by his predecessor, for he also died before the matter was
brought to a conclusion; which was not effected before the
times of Pope Celestine, who was chosen into the see of Rome
vacant by the death of Boniface. Both Boniface and Celes-
tine pursue the purpose of their predecessor: and since the
only obstacle to their wishes was the uncertain authority of
the canons, which had been alleged; if the universal Church
had allowed as much authority to the council of Sardica as
the whole Catholic world ascribed to that of Nice, who does
not see, that by producing the true canons, the matter might
have been decided in an instant? But neither Boniface nor
Celestine were ignorant, that the exception above mentioned

fratres, in concilio Niceno,&e.—Com- Carthag. VI. ce. iii. Concilia, iii. col.
monit. Zosimi Pape, recit. in Conc. 444, C. |

Sardica on the Africans, as a Nicene canon. 237
was ready to be made, if instead of the Nicene council, that
of Sardica had been named in an affair of such importance.
They who give any other reasonP why three successive popes,
Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine, with a wonderful obstinacy
of mind alleged the canons of the council of Sardica, instead
of those of the council of Nice, and for these endeavoured to
obtrude those upon the African fathers, as great masters of
subtilties as they are, yet have undertaken a very difficult
province. For they have an adversary to contend with, that
peyictny Oeov, “ greatest goddess9” of Polybius, which con-
tinues invincible to the last; I mean the truth, whose rays
always shine even in the thickest darkness, much more in
the clearest light, such as this is. Still five years longer was
this business transacting, yet at last it was ended, and at the
same time that question decided which we are here discuss-
ing. The public acts of that controversy are extant, and
from them J shall here give the reader a transcript of that
letter, which after the receipt of copies of the Nicene canons
of most approved credit, was sent to Pope Celestine by the
Carthaginian fathers, when that council was ended. This
synodical Epistle is in all the editions of the councils, even
in the latest printed at Cologne the last year’. What there-
fore the general council of Carthage, assembled from all the
provinces of Africa, had decreed concerning transmarine
appeals to the bishop of Rome, the fathers of that council
declare to Pope Celestine in these words §:

“To our most beloved lord and honourable brother, Celes-
tine, Aurelius, Valentinus, Antonius, Tutus, Servus Dei,
Terentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, Januarius, Optatus, Celti-
tius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and the
rest, who were present in the general council of Carthage.
We could wish truly, that as your holiness intimated in your

1607. [Concilia, Binii, Colon. 1606. ]

P [See Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont.,
5 [Domino dilectissimo, et honora-

lib. ii. c. 24. Op., tom. i. p. 334, sqq.

Baronius, Annal. Eccl. ann. 419, num.
60, 87,sqq. Besides other grounds they
allege that the canons of Sardica were
united to those of Nice in the Latin
copies, the council of Sardica being re-
garded as asupplement to that of Nice. }

4 [Polyb. Hist., lib. xiii. ¢. 5. § 4.]

r Viz. anno 1606. For this tract of
Casaubon’s was first published anno

bili fratri Ccelestino, Aurelius, Valen-
tinus, Antonius, Tutus, Servusdei, Te-
rentius, Fortunatus, Martinus, Janua-
rius, Optatus, Celtitius, Donatus, Thea-
sius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, et cz-
teri, qui in universali Africano concilio
Carthaginis adfuimus. Optaremus, si
quemadmodum sanctitas tua de ad-
ventu Apiarii latatos vos fuisse, missis

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

_ SECT. IV.

238 Letter from the bishops of Africa to

arrenpix. letter sent by our compresbyter Leo, that you rejoiced at the

NO. VI.

arrival of Apiarius, so we could send this letter with joy for
his clearing himself. Indeed both ours and your rejoicing
would be now more certain; nor would that seem hastened
or too forward, which had already been testified, both for the
hearing of his cause and upon its being heard. On the
arrival indeed of our holy brother and fellow-bishop, Fausti-
nus, we convened a council, and believed he was therefore
sent with Apiarius, that as by his help Apiarius had been
before restored to the presbytery, so he might now by his
endeavour be cleared from so great crimes laid to his charge
by the people of Thabraca: and our council upon a thorough
examination, found his guilt to be so great and atrocious,
that the fore-mentioned Faustinus was so far from being able
to acquit him as a judge, that even as an advocate he could
not defend him; for first, how much did he oppose all the
assembly, by offering them many injuries, as it were assert-
ing privileges to the Roman Church, and expecting we should
receive to communion him, whom your holiness (believing he
had appealed, which you could not prove) had restored to
communion? which yet was by no means lawful, and which
you will know better by reading an account of what was
done. Yet a most laborious trial of three days being heard,
when we with very great trouble enquired into the different
crimes laid to his charge, God the just Judge, patient and
long-suffering, did by a most compendious way cut off either
the delays of our fellow-bishop Faustinus, or the tergiversa-
tions of Apiarius himself, by which he endeavoured to con-

per compresbyterum nostrum Leonem
literis, intimavit; ita nos quoque de
ejus purgatione hee scripta cum le-
titia mitteremus. Esset profecto et
nostra et vestra modo alacritas cer-
tior: nec festinata, nec przpropera
videretur, que adhuec tam de audi-
endo, quam de audito precesserat.
Adveniente sane ad nos sancto fratre et
coepiscopo nostro Faustino, concilium
congregavimus et credidimus ideo eum
illo missum, quoniam sicut per ejus
operam presbyterio ante redditus fuerat,
ita nunc posset de tantis criminibus a
Tabracenis objectis, eo laborante, pur-
gari; cujus tanta ac tam immania fla-
gitia decursus nostri concilii examen
invenit, ut et memorati patrocinium

potius, quam judicium, ac defensoris
magis operam, quam disceptatoris jus-
titiam superarent. Nam primum, quan-
tum obstiterit omni congregationi diver-
sas injurias ingerendo, quasi ecclesiz
Romane asserens privilegia, et volens
eum a nobis in communionem suscipi,
quem tua sanctitas, (credens appellasse,
quod probare non potuit) communioni
reddiderat, quod minime tamen licuit ;
quod etiam gestorum ex lectione me-
lius cognosces. ‘Triduano tamen labo-
riosissimo agitato judicio, cum diversa
eidem objecta afflictissimi quzreremus,
vel moras coepiscopi nostri Faustini,
vel tergiversationes ipsius Apiarii, qui-
bus nefandas turpitudines occulere co-
nabatur, Deus, judex justus fortis et

Pope Celestine, against the restoration of Apiarius. 239

ceal his foul crimes: for his shameful and abominable obsti-
nacy being overcome, by which he attempted to cover so
black a guilt with the impudence of a denial, our God con-
straining his conscience, and bringing out into the sight of
men those hidden things which he had already condemned
in his heart, as in a sink of wickedness, immediately the
deceitful denier broke out into a confession of all the crimes
of which he was accused, and at length of his own accord
convicted himself of all the incredible reproaches, and also
converted into sighs that hope of ours, by which we both
believed and wished he might be able to cleanse himself from
such shameful spots ; unless because he mitigated that sorrow
of ours with only one consolation, that he both freed us from
the pains of a longer inquisition, and provided some kind of
cure for his wounds, although by an unwilling confession,
made with the reluctance of his own conscience. ‘Therefore
our lord and brother, after having paid the duty of a just
salutation, we earnestly beseech you, that for the future you
will not too easily admit to your audience such as come from
hence, nor any more receive to communion such as are ex-
communicated by us; because your reverence will easily
observe, that this is also decreed by the Nicene council. For
although the provision there made seems to be concerning
the inferior clergy or laity, how much more was it the de-
sign of the council, that this should be observed concerning
bishops, that such as are suspended from communion in
their own province, may not seem to be hastily, or too for-
wardly, or unduly restored to communion by your holiness ?

longanimis, magno impendio resecavit.
Tetriore quippe ac putidiore obstina-
tione compressa, qua tantum lividum
coenum impudentia negationis volebat
obruere, Deo nostro ejus conscientiam
coarctante, et occulta que in illius
corde tanquam in volutabro criminum
jam daminabat, etiam hominibus publi-
cante, repente in confessionem cunc-
torum objectorum flagitiorum dolosus
negator erupit. Et tandem de omni-
bus ineredibilibus opprobriis ultroneus
se ipse convicit, atque ipsam quoque
nostram spem, qua eum et credebamus
et optabamus de tam pudendis maculis
posse purgari, convertit in gemitus:
nisi quoniam istam nostram meestitiam
uno tantum solatio mitigavit, quod et

nos labore diuturnioris quzstionis ab-
solvit, et suis vulneribus qualemcum-
que medelam, etsi invita ac sua consci-
entia reluctante, confessione providit,
domine frater. Praefato itaque debitz
salutationis officio, impendio depreca-
mur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures hine
venientes non facilius admittatis, nec
a nobis excommunicatos in commu-
nionem ultra velitis excipere: quia
hoe etiam Niczno concilio definitum
facile advertet venerabilitas tua. Nam
et si de inferioribus clericis vel laicis
videtur ibi pracaveri: quanto magis
hoe de episcopis voluit observari, ne in
sua provincia communione suspensi, a
tua sanctitate vel festinato, vel prapro-
pere, vel indebite videantur commu-

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
KCCL.
CHAP. SUI.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX,

NO, VI.

240 The bishops of Africa claim to decide their own causes ;

And may your holiness, as is worthy of you, reject the im-

pious applications for protection made you by our presbyters
and the clergy following them, because no decree of the
fathers has diminished the power of the African Church in
this behalf: and the canons of the council of Nice have most
evidently committed both the inferior clergy and the bishops
themselves to the care and jurisdiction of their metropolitans;
for they have most prudently and most justly provided, that
all matters of controversy whatsoever be determined in those
places in which they first arose; for that the grace of the
Holy Spirit will not be wanting to each province, whereby
the bishops of Christ may both most wisely discern, and most
resolutely observe justice; especially because it is allowed to
every one, if he be injured by the sentence of his judges, to
appeal to a synod of his own province, or even to a general
council; unless perhaps there be any one who thinks our
God will inspire any particular person with justice to hear a
cause, and will deny this to a numerous company of bishops
assembled in council. Or how shall the transmarine judg-
ment itself be valid, to which the persons necessary to give
evidence, by reason of the infirmity either of their sex or of
their age, and many other intervening impediments, cannot
be brought? For that legates should be sent as it were from
the presence of your holiness, is a method which we do not
find appointed by the fathers in any council; for as to that
which you formerly transmitted to us from thence, by the
same Faustinus our fellow-bishop, as decreed by the council
of Nice; in the truer councils, which we have received for

nioni restitui: presbyterorum quoque etiam universale provocare. Nisi forte

et sequentium clericorum improba re-
fugia (sicuti te dignum est) repellat
sanctitas tua: quia et nulla patrum
definitione hoe ecclesiz derogatum est
Africanz, et decreta Niczena sive infe-
rioris gradus clericos, sive ipsos epi-
scopos, suis metropolitanis apertissime
commiserunt. Prudentissime enim, jus-
tissimeque providerunt, quacumque
negotia in suis locis, ubi orta sunt, fini-
enda: nec unicuique provincia gratiam
Sancti Spiritus defuturam, qua zqui-
tas a Christi sacerdotibus et prudenter
videatur, et constantissime teneatur:
maxXime, quia unicuique concessum
est, si judicio offensus fuerit, cognito-
rum, ad concilia suze proyincie, vel

quisquam est qui credat, unicuilibet
posse Deum nostrum examinis inspi-
rare justitiam, et innumerabilibus
congregatis in concilium sacerdotibus
denegare. Aut quomodo ipsum trans-~
marinum judicium ratum erit,ad quod
testium necessariz persone, vel prop-
ter sexus, vel propter senectutis infir-
mitatem, multis aliis intercurrentibus
impedimentis, adduci non poterunt?
Nam ut aliqui tanquam a tue sancti-
tatis latere mittantur, nulla invenimus
patrum synodo constitutum. Quia illud
quod pridem per eumdem coepiscopum
nostrum Faustinum, tanquam ex parte
Niczni concilii, exinde transmisistis:
in conciliis verioribus, quz accipiuntur

the bishop of Rome addressed by them as a brother, 241

the Nicene, sent us by the holy Cyril, our fellow-bishop of casauson

the Church of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus,
patriarch of Constantinople, transcribed from the authentic
Acts, which also heretofore were transmitted by us to Bishop
Boniface, your predecessor of venerable memory, by Innocent
a presbyter, and Marcellus a sub-deacon, by whom they were
directed by them to us; in these we could not find any such
thing. And do not send at the request of every one your
clergy executors‘, do not yield to such petitions, lest we
should seem to introduce the vain pride of the world into the
Church of Christ, which holds forth the light of simplicity
and the day of humility to such as desire to see the Lord.
For as for our brother Faustinus, (Apiarius, who is to be
lamented, beg now removed from the Church of Christ for
his heinous impieties,) we promise ourselves from the probity
and moderation of your holiness, that you will preserve
brotherly love, and not suffer him to remain any longer in
Africa.” And by another hand, “ Our Lord keep your holi-
ness, our lord and brother, with long life to pray for us.”
Many things might have been brought to illustrate this
most memorable Epistle, which I omit for the present; yet I
shall note a few things that are most necessary. In the first
place the reader may observe, that the African fathers treat
with the bishop of Rome just as with any other of the more
considerable bishops. Therefore also they call him brother,
as St. Cyprian always does Cornelius and Stephen, bishops
of that see. The titles which are here added are borrowed,
and have no proper signification ; even that of “your holiness,”
now used only in addressing to the pope of Rome, was of old

Nicena,asanctoCyrillocoepiscoponos- _-videre cupientibus prefert, videamur
tro Alexandrine ecclesiw, et a venera- inducere. Nam de fratre nostro Faus-
bili Attico Constantinopolitano antisti- tino (amoto jam pro suis nefandis
te, ex authentico missis que etiam ante nequitiis de Christi ecclesia dolendo
hoc per Innocentium presbyterum et Apiario) securi sumus, quod eum pro-
Marcellum subdiaconum, per quos ad_ bitate ac moderatione tue sanctita-
nos ab eis directa sunt, venerabilis me- itis salva fraterna caritas ulterius in
morie Bonifacio episcopo predecessor Africa minime sustinere patiatur. Et

vestro, a nobis transmissa sunt, in qui- alia manu: Dominus noster sanctita-
bus tale aliquid non potuimus reperire. tem vestram evo longiore orantem pro
Executores etiam clericos vestros qui- nobis custodiat, domine frater.—Epist.

busque petentibus nolite mittere, nolite Concil. Africani ad Pap. Celestinum,
concedere, ne fumosum typhum seculi ap. Conce., tom. iii. col. 532—534. ]

in ecclesiam Christi, que lucem sim- t Clericos executores.

plicitatis, et humilitatis diem, Deum

HICKES. Ta

DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP, IIT.

SECT. IV.

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

1 [in the
tenth and
thirteenth
canons.” |

2 (*¢ which
he could
not prove.” |

242 Zosimus endeavoured to establish the right of appeals

common to all bishops. So others saluted the bishop of
Rome, and so the bishop of Rome saluted others ; and indeed
all bishops complimented each other in the same style. Pope
Zosimus in his Epistle to the African bishop, says", “ We
determined to make known to your holiness our inquisition
about the whole faith of Celestius.” The use of that form
is frequent in St. Augustine’s Epistles, and in other authors,
as in the hundred and first canon! of the council of Milevis*.
Apiarius mentioned by the fathers in the beginning, was an
African presbyter, who being excommunicated by the most
just sentence of Urban his bishop, had fled to Zosimus for
protection, and been received and absolved by him. About
the same time Pelagius and Celestius, most wicked heretics,
also excommunicated by the African bishops, flying for refuge
to the same pope, were admitted by him to the same favour ;
and Zosimus made use of this occasion to endeavour to esta-
blish in Africa a right of appeals to the bishop of Rome. To
effect this, he sent three legates into Africa, two presbyters,
Philip and Asellus, and Faustinus, bishop of the Church of
Potentia, a wicked man, as appears from this Epistle; who
after he came into Africa, did many things tyrannically
against the will of the African bishops, especially in the
cause of the profligate villain Apiarius, whom he restored to
the presbytery by violence, to the great grief of the Africans;
and then he made his cause to be reheard in this general
council, and how that trial was managed, and when all the
council was at a stand by reason of the impudence of Apia-
rius, whom Faustinus defended with great violence, how pro-
vidence untied the Gordian knot, this Epistle shews. The
fathers say, “ Whom your holiness, thinking he had appealed,
which you could not prove, had restored to communion,
which yet was by no means lawful.” After the manner of
the Africans the fathers speak obscurely ; for those words,
quod probare non potuit, “which could not be proved’*,”
whether they ought to be referred to Apiarius, or to the
pope himself, is not plain. The Greeks turned the passage

" (Unde in presenti causa nihil pre- iii. col. 402, C.]
cox immaturumque censuimus, sed in- x [Concil. Milev. II. (A.D. 416.)
notescere sanctitati vestree super abso- Canones x., xiii. Concilia, tom, ili, col.
luta Celestii fide nostrum examen.— 383, C, E.]
Zosimi Pap. Epist. iii, ap. Concil., tom

to Rome; this right was denied by the African bishops. 248

thus’, ov ) 0) dyiwotvn TicTevoaca exkanretcbat, brEp aTro-
SetEar ove HdvvjOn, TH Kowwwvia atrodédmxev, “whom your
holiness believing to appeal, which it (that is, your holiness)
was not able to prove, restored to communion :” without
doubt referring the words to the pope himself, so as that the
sense of them should be this; that Pope Zosimus, Boniface,
or Celestine himself, (for there is no difference, because what
the former had done was confirmed by the latter,) therefore
took upon him to reverse the sentence of the African bishops,
and himself to receive those whom they had ejected, and to
command the Africans also to receive them, because he be-
lieved that the right of all appeals belonged to him, “ which
yet,” say they, “could not be proved.” And indeed they said
true, for the Nicene canons were falsely alleged in this case,
as will be observed presently in this Epistle. Now that
imaginary right of appeals being once taken away, it neces-
sarily follows, that whatever had’ been done in this affair by
the bishop of Rome with arbitrary and absolute power, was
by the law itself void, as being an usurpation and against
law. The fathers do manifestly signify this, when they add,
quod minime tamen licuit, “which yet was by no means law-
ful.” Besides in all that writing the Africans do so defend
the rights of their own liberty, that they both always speak
with the greatest modesty of the bishop of Rome, and would
seem to have the most candid opinion of him; for these holy
men had not yet learnt from the great mistress experience,
how far at last the Roman pontiffs would improve these be-
ginnings, to which they opposed themselves. If the same

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.
CHAP, III.

SECT. IV,

African fathers, by His command, who in the prophet Ezek. 37.

brought together again the scattered bones, should now
return into this world, and understand those things which
were afterwards done by the Hildebrands, the Bonifaces, the
Alexanders, and such like, and which at this day are not dis-
puted concerning the absolute monarchy of the pope of
Rome, but are taught as necessary articles of faith, how
would they stand amazed? How far differently would they
speak from what they did of old? For Cardinal Baronius
does manifestly abuse the patience of his readers, when he

Y (Cod. Canonum Ecclesie Africana, can. exxxviii. ap. Concilia, tom. ii.
col. 1366, B.]

APPENDIX.

NO. VI.

244 Baronius, that only the mode of appeal was objected to.

sets* the modest complaints of these fathers in opposition
against those of such as lived afterwards, which indeed were
more severe but no less just. The fathers therefore say,
“We beseech you, that for the future such as come to you
from hence, may not be too easily admitted to your audi-
ence ;” that is, that you may not admit them with that
facility with which you have often done hitherto; nor in that
meaning as if the right of appeals belonged to the Roman
see. For otherwise the fathers would not hinder the bishop
of Rome from receiving, by that office of charity which was
explained above, such as had suffered injury in Africa, and
assisting them after the accustomed manner there inti-
mated. It was the assuming of authority, not the offices of
humanity, which the holy fathers took ill. So also is to be
taken that which follows: ‘That such as are suspended from
communion in their own province, may not seem to be hastily,
or too rashly, or unduly restored thereunto by your holi-
ness.” The patrons of our modern ecclesiastical liberty,
whose cause is quite overthrown by the determination of so
great fathers, have taken a handle to dispute from these
words of the epistle*, liberius, ‘too easily,” festinato, “hastily,”
prepropere, ‘over forwardly,” and indebite, “unduly ;” for
from hence they conclude, that the African fathers» “do not
wholly deny the right of appeals to the bishop of Rome, but
desire that he would appoint another more humane way of
prosecuting them.” But when the fathers call back Celestine
to the observance of the Nicene canons, and when they seri-
ously contend that all appeals are taken away by that council,
those of the lesser orders expressly, and those of bishops by
necessary consequence, who does not see clearly, that that
for which they contend is most false and absurd, viz., that in
this council of Carthage only “the manner® of appeals” was

7 [Baronius said, ann. 419. num. 73.
Non quidem (ut hodie Novatores) ar-
guerunt Zosimum imposture, dolumve
malam atque fallacium proclamarunt;
neque ob eam causam derogandum pu-
tarunt Ecclesiz Romane juribus. Sed
quid? summisso animo rogaverunt,
&c. |

a [Vides eos non prohibere appella-
tiones ad Romanam sedem, sed tantum
admonere ipsum Romanum pontificem
ne (ut aiunt) facilius quam par est, nec

festinato, vel prepropere aut indebita
agat.—Baronius, ibid. ]

» [Cum ergo manifeste videas eos
non refragari appellationibus ad Roma-
nam Ecclesiam, sed tantum exigere,
quod zquum justumque videretur.—
Id., ibid., num. 74.] .

e [Haud vere a quopiam dici potest,
appellandi jus aliquando denegatum...
sed potius perspicuum est, de modo pro-
sequendz appellationis obortum esse
dissidium.—Id., ibid., num. 82. ]

The right of Rome to receive appeals was really denied. 245

treated of? The fathers most evidently demonstrate this,
when afterwards they add these words, ‘‘ Because both no
decree of the fathers has derogated from the power of the
African Church in this behalf, and the canons of the council
of Nice have most evidently committed both the inferior
clergy, and the bishops themselves, to the care and jurisdic-
tion of their metropolitans.” And the following words do
also clearly prove the vanity of those who thus cavil, and
easily refute the fiction: “The Nicene fathers,” say they,
“have with very great prudence and justice provided, that
all matters of controversy whatsoever be determined in the
same places in which they first arose.” Who is either so
stupid or so malicious, as not to own that the African fathers,
when they wrote these words, meant by them that all the
affairs of the African Churches should be determined in
Africa? This was certainly St. Cyprian’s’ meaning, when
with the same invincible reason he calls Pope Cornelius back
to the point in controversy, from which he was widely gone
astray. And what St. Cyprian said in the same place®,
“That there were a few desperate wretches, who thought
the bishops constituted in Africa had less authority than
Pope Cornelius, to whom he was writing ;” the same thing
in other, but milder words, the bishops of this council also
intended should be understood, when they spake thus to
Pope Celestine: ‘Unless perhaps there be any one that
thinks our God will inspire any particular person with justice
to hear a cause, and will deny this to a numerous company
of bishops assembled in council.” But what I have often
said, that the ancient Church neither knew, nor made use of
any other kind of appeals, than those from a lesser synod to
a greater, or even to a general cecumenical council; this
also the African fathers here affirm to Pope Celestine, when
they shew that appeals to the bishop of Rome would for that
reason be fruitless, “ because it is allowed to every one, if he
be injured by the judgment of the commissaries, to appeal to
a synod of his own province, or even to a general council.”
But as to those words of the fathers, “ For that any should

a4 [S. Cypr., Ep. lv. ad Cornelium, ditis minor videtur esse auctoritas epi-
p- 86; see above, p. 201, b.] scoporum in Africa constitutorum.—
¢ {Nisi si paucis desperatis et per- Id., ibid. ]

CASAUBON
DE LIB,
ECCL.
CHAP. III.

SECT. Iv.
——

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

1Cor. 18:

246 The authority of Rome really the point in dispute ;

be sent as legates a latere, from your holiness, we do not
find appointed by any council of the fathers,” they must be
helped by an interpretation: for I have abundantly proved
in the foregoing part of this discourse, that it was a most
ancient custom of godly bishops to send their letters and
legates to other Churches which laboured under heresy or
schism, or were any otherwise disturbed; and I gave an
account, that this was frequently done with the greatest zeal
by St. Cyprian and St. Athanasius’. Was it therefore the
meaning of the African fathers to deprive the bishop of Rome
of that right? By no means. But they said this only, be-
cause the Roman bishops seemed to do that, not out of pure
charity, as the rest, but by the prerogative of a certain right, -
and of a dominion, which they would obtain over their
brethren. This the African bishops deprecate and detest,
and for that reason they presently repeat the same caution,
“Do not send your clergy executors at the request of any
persons whatsoever ;” where the very calling them executors
discovers the meaning of those that sent them. On which
subject St. Augustine® says many things in his Epistle to
Celestine; and indeed in all that most judicious epistle
nothing occurs which is more memorable, than that divine
modesty used by those holy fathers in refuting their most
false allegation of the Nicene canons. The matter in dis-
pute was of very great moment, the liberty of the African
Churches, the dominion over which the bishops of Rome
might seem to have affected by none of the best arts: and if
the African bishops had acted with strict justice, those of
Rome had most manifestly stood convicted of forgery: nor
was there any room for excuse, as though they had unawares
been surprised into this mistake; for no man doubted, and
it was most true, that what they did in this case was delibe-
rately and of set purpose, and not by chance. Yet the
African bishops do not complain; they do not cry out that
they were circumvented by fraud; nor lastly, do they utter
one harsh word, or unworthy of that “charity, which beareth
all things, endureth all things,” saith the Apostle. But
neither do they therefore conceal other men’s sins, but

: [See above, pp. 195, sqq.] num, Op., tom. ii. col. 799, E ; quoted
* [S. August., Ep, ccix. ad Celesti- below, p. 252.]

the allegation of the canon as Nicene rejected. 247

reprehend the bishops of Rome; and at the same time that
they forbear accusing them of having falsified, they both in
words assert, and in fact prove, that they had affirmed a
thing that was false: “that,” say they, “which you trans-
mitted to us, as decreed by the council of Nice, we have not
been able to find in the truer copies of that council, sent us
from such as are authentic.” What was this to say else,
but that three popes, who had peremptorily obtruded those
canons upon them for the Nicene, had fallen into an error, and
been deceived? For men’s minds had not yet been accus-
‘tomed to the modern persuasion of some, as if the Roman
pontiff could neither err nor sin. That portentous saying of
Pope Nicholas I, had not yet been heard in the Church of
God», “that the Old and New Testament were to be re-
ceived, not because they were all reckoned among the canon-
ical books, but because the holy Pope Innocent seemed to
have pronounced sentence for receiving them.” Those doc-
tors had not yet broke into the sheepfold of Christ, who for
the rule of pious and impious, and of true and false, acknow-
ledge no other touchstone but the will of the pope of Rome.
Behold three successive popes require those canons to be
accounted Nicene, which were not made in that council.
The African bishops doubt of the fact, and enquire into the
truth of it, and having found it after a very diligent search,
do not betray but assert it; and though with modesty in-
deed, yet defend it against the bishop of Rome. And will
Cardinal Baronius dare to interpret that divine modesty of
those fathers as an argument of their subjection? Will he
dare to say that that holy council did not oppose appeals to
the Church of Rome? Will he dare to deny that it is one thing
to use an appeal, and another to seek for refuge? For the
examples which he produces from St. Augustine! do not prove
that men appealed juridically to the pope, but that a few per-
sons fled to him for protection, who would not acquiesce in the
judgments of the African bishops? Concerning which matter

h [Vetus novumque Testamentum i [Baronius, ibid., num. 75, sqq.,
recipienda sunt, non quod codici cano- alleges the words of S. August. Ep.
num ex toto habeantur annexa, sed quod __xiiii. tom. ii. col. 91, E, and several
de his recipiendis sancti papze Innocen- _ instances mentioned by him on the case

tii prolata videtur esse sententia.—Ni- of Antony of Fussala, Id., Ep. ccix.
colai Pape I. Epist. xlii. ap. Concil., § 8. ibid., col. 777, B, C. ]
tom. x. col. 283, A. |

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL. —
CHAP. III.

SECT. IV.
—_—_—_—————

APPENDIX.
NO. VI.

248 Africa for a long time alienated from Rome.

I have said many things in the foregoing part of this treatise.
Let young students beware of the impropriety of such sort of
expressions; for the misapplication (as the most judicious
philosopher Maximus Tyrius calls it) of a word plainly insin-
uates an erroneous opinion into the minds of the unwary.
The African fathers themselves do better, who in this Epistle
style this the clergy’s “flying for protection,” not their ap-
pealing. But Cardinal Baronius should have remembered,
that those instances in which he triumphs, happened even by
his own confession before this council was concluded, in which
at length the question was decided, concerning appeals to
the see of Rome. But from Zosimus to the end of this
council there was a space of above five years, during all
which time the rights of the African bishops were suspended
by their free concession, as I have already shewn. But after
this council was ended, and the truth of the Nicene canons
enquired into, and this synodical Epistle sent to Pope Celes-
tine, there was so far from being any use of appeals in Africa
to the Church of Rome, that many were persuaded (whether
truly or falsely I do not now dispute) that the Africans did
from that time wholly separate themselves from the Roman
communion, or were cut off from it as schismatics by the
pope himself. There is extant under the name of Boniface
II. an Epistle written to one Eulalius*, to which if we give
any credit, the fathers of this holy council, among whom was
St. Augustine, were all excommunicated from the Church of
Rome: and that schism continued more than one whole cen-
tury, viz.,a hundred and ten years, till at length Boniface II.
being advanced to the see of Rome, that relation came from
Africa which is mentioned in his life. Whether these things
are true, as almost all men believe them, or of little credit, as
some few think!; this certainly is evident from hence, that
after that council the Africans went so seldom to Rome for
protection, much less by way of appeal, that they seemed

Kk [Aurelius enim prefate Cartha- gatum, &c.—Bonifacii Pap. II. (A.D.

ginensis ecclesiz olim episcopus, cum
collegis suis (instigante diabolo) super-
bire temporibus preedecessorum nostro-
rum Bonifacii atque Cezlestini contra
Romanam ecclesiam czpit. Sed vi-
dens simodo peccatis Aurelii Eulalius
a Romane ecclesiz communicne segre-

529.) Epist. i.ad Eulalium, ap. Concil.,
tom. v. col. 827, E; 828, A. }

! [ Bellarmine, Baronius, Binius, de-
nied the genuineness of the letter.
See Labbe’s Observations, ibid., col.
826, E. ]

The danger of worldly ambition in the Church. 249

altogether separated from the communion of that Church.
Towards the end of the epistle the fathers discover the reason
why they so industriously opposed the bishops of Rome in
their endeavours to draw transmarine appeals to themselves :
“That we may not seem,’ say they, “to imtroduce the
haughtiness of this world into the Church of Christ, which
holds forth the light of simplicity and the day of humility to
such as desire to see God.” The same fathers had before
written thus to Pope Boniface™ : “‘ But we trust by the assist-
ance of the mercy of our Lord God, that your holiness pre-
siding over the Church of Rome, we shall not now endure
that haughtiness.” The desire of the Roman bishops to
establish that right of appeals, is what the holy fathers call
typhum seculi, “the haughtiness of this world;’ that is,
haughtiness, ambition, and pride; and they lament that" that
is brought into the Church of God, and desire to use dili-
gence to hinder it, as far as they should be able.

Thus after a few years the fathers of the third cecumenical
council receiving an account that the patriarch of Antioch,
contrary to ancient custom, assumed to himself the nght of
hearing the ecclesiastical causes of the isle of Cyprus, pro-
nouncing the thing to be of ill example, repressed the man’s
arrogance, “ Lest peradventure, (say they in the eighth canon’,)
under the pretence of administering things sacred, the ar-
rogance of worldly power insinuate itself into the Church,
and we unawares, by little and little, lose that liberty which
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of all, hath purchased
for us with His own precious blood.” In the same place the
fathers truly pronounce this arrogance? 7payya eivat THs Tav-
Tov édrevOeplas amromevor, “to be a thing prejudicial to the
liberty of all.” And it is very worthy to be observed, that the
fathers of both councils, seeing they were inspired with the

m [Sed credimus, adjuvante miseri-
cordia Domini Dei nostri, quod tua
sanctitate Romane Ecclesie presi-
dente, non sumus jam istum typhum

passuri.—Epist. ee Afrie. ad Boni-
facium P. ap. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric.
cxxxiv. tom. ii. 1360, B. See Cone.
Afric, (A.D. 418.) ibid., tom. ili. 448,
D. |

n [A mistranslation in the third
edition has been corrected here. |

HICKES.

° [iva bh TeV mar Epwy oi Kavdves
mapaBalverat, pndé év lepoupylas mpo-
oxhwat. ebovolas TUpOS (oops) ™a-
pewrdun Tal, bende AdBeopey THY eAcvbeplay
kara, bukpov dmorcravres, hy hiv ebw-
phoaro TH idi@ alba 6 Kebptos Tay
“Inoous Xpirrds, 6 navTay avoparwy
eAevdepwrs.— Cone. aie decretum
de Episcopis Cypr. (a). Canon. viii.)
Concilia, tom. iii. col. 1324, E. |

P {Id., ibid. |

K k

CASAUBON
DE LIB.
ECCL.,

CHAP, III.
SECT. IV.

250 When the popes have uncanonically received appeals,

Avrenprx. Same spirit, and therefore agreed in the same opinion, did
“in the same manner mark out and detest the thirst of domi-
nion, an evil already fatal to the Church in that age. The
Carthaginian fathers call it typhum seculi, “ the arrogance of
this world.” The council of Ephesus styles it, ridov Kkoops-
Khs €Eovolas, “the arrogance of worldly power.” I would
to God the bishops that succeeded those times had always
rightly considered the force of this word and the necessity
of this precept. But I shall shew in the sequel, that the
bishops of Rome especially did soon apply themselves with
so much violence to procure themselves power, that in re-
'[“in com- spect of! this one care they had little regard to any thing
of] else. Therefore they took no notice of such as faithfully
admonished them; and among these sometimes the most
Christian kings of France, who pressed them with the very
words of this council. And thus much may suffice to have
been said at present concerning the right of appeals to the

bishop of Rome.

Moreover that which I have observed in reading ecclesias-
tical history does not seem to me to have been done without
design, viz., that the bishops of Rome have been most dan-
gerously deceived almost as often as, neglecting to observe
the most ancient canons, they have presumed to receive such
as were excommunicated or condemned elsewhere by pious
bishops, and to hear their causes. Felicissimus, the most
wicked legate of the schismatics, almost set at variance with
each other Cornelius, a very good man, and St. Cyprian, and
other pious bishops of Africat. Basilides of Spain being
received contrary to the discipline of the Church, obliged
Pope Stephen to pass a sentence, which was afterwards most
justly condemned by the common suffrages of the Spanish
and African Churches, not without some disgrace to so great
a prelate'. ‘There was one Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia, a
subtle and crafty heretic, who being condemned by the sen-
tences of the orthodox bishops in his province of Melitene (a
part of Cappadocia so called), dd0v éav7®@ (says St. Basil in a
certain Epistle to the western bishops‘) ts. amroxatacTa-
gews eTrevonce, THY eis buds apEw, “thought of this way

4 [See above, pp. 208, sqq.] s [S. Basilii M. Epist. eexili. § 3.
¥ [See above, pp. 209, sqq. ] Op., tom. ii. p. 406, C.]

they have almost always been dangerously deceived. 251

to procure his restitution, viz., to take a journey to you.”
Liberius was then bishop of Rome, whom the same father
calls “most holyt bishop ;” but that fox imposed even upon
Liberius. Having therefore obtained commendatory letters
from the bishop of Rome, and shewed them to the synod of
Tyana, he was easily restored to his former see; but not
long after the unclean dog returning to his vomit, did at
once disturb the orthodox Churches of his own province,
and not a little stain the glory of Liberius.

And Vitalis, another bishop from the east, did in like
manner deceive Pope Damasus. He acknowledging his mis-
take, and peradidayOels, “ being set right,” (as Gregory Na-
zianzen expresses it to Cledonius",) droxjpuKtov avrov TreTol-

CASAUBON
DE Lib.
ECCL,

CHAP. III,
SECT. IV.

nTat, Kal Tpos avToOV THY aTdTnY avTodD ducxepavas, iv éTra-
Qev é& amdorntos, &c., “excommunicated him (Vitalis), and
being offended at the cheat by which he had been imposed
upon through too much simplicity,” &c. And what did not
Pope Zosimus attempt, when deceived by the fair words of
Patroclus of Arles, a most profligate villain? He nulled the
ordinations of Ursus and Tuentius*, duly solemnized nearly
twenty years before, and that in a lawful council held at
Turin. In several letters, as Cardinal Baronius himself at-
tests’, he most unjustly reviled Heros and Lazarus, two
bishops of our Gallican Church, that were inflamed with a
divine zeal. He raised Patroclus himself as high as he
could, by an accession of new honour?. Lastly, the same
Pope Zosimus absolved Pelagius*, an enemy to the grace of
Christ, and undertook the protection and defence of Celes-
tius*, a notorious heretic, and of Apiarius, a presbyter, free
from no wickedness ; and that against holy men, the bishops
of Africa, who had chastised those monsters with the sword

of discipline. And these are the persons in whose defence

t [rod pakapiwrdrov.—lbid }

“ [6 mot SoKxe?t, Kal Aduacos avtds
peradibaxOels, kal Gua muOduevos em
TOY TpoTepwy meéevey avToUs eEnyhoewr,
aroKnpuKTous avTovs TeTmojTOa, Kal Td
ypapuaretoy avaretpapevat, THs TlaTEws
ovy avabepatioug’ Kal awpbs abrhy tiv
amrdrny avtav Sucxepavas, hy €mabev ef
anaddrnTtos..—S. Greg. Naz. Epist. cii.
ad Cledonium, Op., tom. ii. p. $6, B.]

x [ Zosimi Pape Epist. vi. ad Epise.
Gall. ap. Concilia, tom. iii. col. 411. j

y [Adeo vehementer infamat.—Ba-
ronius ann. 416, num. 23. Zosim.
Epist. iii., iv. ibid., col. 401, sqq. ]

z {Id., Epist. v.—xii. ibid., col. 409—
417. }

« [Id., Epist. iii., iv. ibid., col. 401,
sqq- J

252 Of appeals to the prince.

aprenvix, Zosimus began the great controversy concerning the right

—*°: “of appeals. This pope lived in the administration of the see
of Rome but one year and four months: if he had governed
there longer, what might not have been attempted by a man
of his spirit? Pope Celestine having undertaken the de-
fence of Antony bishop of Fussala, after the death of Pope
Boniface, to whom Antony had fled for protection when
he was most deservedly turned out of his see in Africa, filled
all that province of Africa with so much terror that St. Au-
gustine was obliged to write to him, and use these words”:
“They are threatened, whether it be by him or by most
frequent rumours, with judicial proceedings, and public au-
thority, and military force, as it were to execute the sentence
of the apostolic see; insomuch that these most miserable
persons, although they are Catholic Christians, do yet fear
more from a Catholic bishop, than when they were heretics
they apprehended from the laws of the Catholic emperors.” I
omit other instances like to these, which had certainly never
happened if the ancient discipline had remained: and what
I shewed was done in the case of Marcion® had been observed
in those of all the rest, whose cause was different from, but
not better than that of Marcion.

It remains that I speak a few words concerning appeals
to the prince. Now it is a very different matter when a
prince and when a greater synod is appealed to; for the
bishops who assemble in a synod are the lawful judges of
divine affairs. Appeals therefore are made to them as to
those to whom the cognizance of such controversies belongs:
but the prince is appealed to, not that he should pronounce
sentence concerning divine matters, but that he should com-
mand it to be duly and orderly pronounced; for he is the
keeper and defender of good order and discipline, and of all
lawful ordinances, no less in the Church than in the rest of
the State. It is an heretical opinion, maintained by many

® (Judicia quippe illis, et publicas a catholico episcopo, quam, cum essent
potestates, et militares impetus tam- heretici, a catholicorum imperatorum

quam exsecuturos apostolic sedis sen- legibus formidabant.—S.August. Epist.
tentiam, sive ipse, sive rumores creber- _ ccix. Op., tom. ii. col. 779, E. ed. Ben. ]
rim1l comminantur, ut miseri homines © [See above, p. 206. ]

Christiani ecatholici graviora formident

(The rest of the treatise wanting.) 253

at present, who allow the prince no other place in ecclesias- casausoy
. : DE LIB
tigal: affairs... ... 0: ECCL.
CHAP. Il.
_ SECT SEE
The rest is wanting, the king of France, at the instance
of Pope Paul V., having forbid the author to proceed, as was
said above in the editor’s advertisement. Vide Mer. Casaub.

Pietat., p. 124, edit. Lond. in 8vo. A.D. 1621°.

4 [And ap. Is. Casauboni Epist., tom. ii. p. 101. Roterod. 1709. j

‘yas

fi ia
me) ; a

ery go iwc earn ae
gece erosirest papepanirerest lea
Serge: eh terert, wes each Pe Bt

pa nent. ss cmusiall Wi ye " sal v@ saan >, at

es
>
os

= els anid ethane Sota, din ONE ae
Fi : 7 Racine ee S jr ' ina A <x : ee:
1 ae i ‘or 7 = Ay 4 ve y oma ;
7 - . “ : » 5 ‘ A ¢ svaatie * a 3
2) iy « i ia 4 wh Di a,
- : Z |
RT ue Py, |
3 A .
- ft
|
f
:

ALP EN. DLX:
No:

[PESTIMONIES TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE TREATISE ON THE
CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. |

Laup’s ConrerENcE witH Fisner, § 35. pp. 305, 306°.

My third instance shall be in the sacrifice which is offered ase. Lav.
up to God in that great and high mystery of our redemp-
tion by the death of Christ: for as Christ offered up Him-
self once for all, a full and all-sufficient sacrifice for the
sins of the whole world, so did He institute and command a
memory of this sacrifice in a Sacrament, even till His com-
ing again. For at and in the Eucharist we offer up to God
three sacrifices: one by the priest only; that is the comme-
morative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in bread
broken and wine poured out; another by the priest and the
people jointly, and that is the sacrifice of praise and thanks-
giving for all the benefits and graces we receive by the pre-
cious death of Christ ; the third by every particular man for
himself only, and that is the sacrifice of every man’s body
and soul, to serve Him in both all the rest of his life for this
blessing thus bestowed on him.

Hammonn’s Practicat Catecuisq, lib. vi. § 4. p. 129°.

In 1 Cor. x. 16 the Sacrament is set down, and the nature mamvonp.
and use of it, thus: “the cup of blessing which we bless,”
or (as the Syriac‘) “the cup of praise,” 1.e. the chalice of
wine, which is in the name of the people offered up by the
bishop or presbyter to God with lauds and thanksgivings,
i.e. that whole eucharistical action (and that expressed to be
the action of the people as well as the presbyter, by their

a {A Relation of the Conference be- don, 1684. (p. 393. ed. Oxford, 1847.) ]
tween Abp. Laud and Mr. Fisher the : y AR ste At
Jesuit, sect. 35. § 7. Punct. 3. London © {hort Z: cor [ma Calix ille
1639. (p. 256. ed. Oxford, 1839.) t :

» (This reference is to the collected gratiarum actionis, 1 Cor. x. 16.—
works of Hammond, vol. i. ed. 2. Lon- Bibl. Polygl. Walton., tom. v. p. 704. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VIL.

1
2

Cor. 11.
ie

256 Hammond on the commemorative Sacrifice,

drinking of it) is the communication of the blood of Christ,
a service of theirs to Christ, a sacrifice of thanksgiving com-
memorative of that great mercy and bounty of Christ, in
pouring out His blood for them, and a making them (or a
means by Christ ordained to make them) partakers of the
blood of Christ; not of the guilt of shedding it, but (if they
come worthily thither) of the benefits that are purchased by
it, viz., the washing away of sin in His blood. So in like
manner the breaking and eating of the bread is a communi-
cation of the body of Christ, a sacrifice commemorative of
Christ’s offering up His body for us, and a making us par-
takers, or communicating to us the benefits of that bread of
life, strengthening and giving us grace.

[Hammonp] View or THE New Directory, § 39.
pp. 374, 3754.

For the order of the offertory it must be first observed, that
in the primitive apostolic Church the offertory was a consider-
able part of the action in the administering and receiving the
Sacrament; the manner of it was thus. At their meetings
for divine service every man, as he was able, brought some-
thing along with him, bread or wine, the fruits of the
season, &c.; of this, part was used for the Sacrament, the
rest kept to furnish a common table for all the brethren, (and
therefore in Ignatius, Ep. ad Smyrn.*, doynv émuvenetv, “to
celebrate the feast,” is to administer that Sacrament, being
joined there with the mention of baptism,) rich and poor to
eat together, no one taking precedence of other, or challeng-
ing a greater part to himself by reason of his bringing more.
This is discernible in St. Paul’s words, chiding the Corinth-
ians for their defaults in this matter. “ Every man,” saith
he, “takes and eats before another his own supper,” 1. e. the
rich that brought more eats that which he brought, ws ‘dcov
defrvov, as if he were at home eating his own private meals,
without respect to the nature of those aydmat, which were a
common meal for all; and so while one is filled to the full,

4 [A View of the New Directory and © [ovr e&dv eort xwpis Tod emitkdrou,
a Vindication of the Ancient Liturgy of ore Bamntifew, otre mpoopépey, obre
the Church of England, (Oxford, 1641,) @volav mpockoulfew, ore Soxiy emire-
by H. Hammond; Works, vol. i. pp. Aciv.—S. Ignat. ad Smyrn. Epist., c.
374, 375. ed. 1684. ] viii. Patr. Apost., tom. il. p. 86. ]

and on the offerings made at the Eucharist. 257

some other have little or nothing to eat; which is the mean- resrmo-

ing of that which follows, “One is hungry and another is ,,

drunken.” After the aydaz ceased, and the bringing of the
fruits of the season, which was a kind of first-fruit offering,
was out-dated, whether by canon of the Church or by con-
trary custom, this manner was still continued, that every re-
ceiver brought somewhat with him to offer, particularly bread,
and wine mixed with water. Justin Martyr, Apol. 1. p. 97‘,
sets down the manner of it clearly in his time, rpoodépetas
T® TpocoT@TL THY adeAdov apTos, &c., “The bread and the
wine of the brethren,” i.e. communicants, “is brought to
the priest or prefect,” (not as the Latin interpreter reads
prefecto fratrum, as if adeX pov were to be joined with zpoe-
aT@tt, Which belongs to dptos,) “and he receiving it gives
laud and praise unto God, in the name of the Son and the
Holy Ghost, and all the people join in the Amen; then
do the deacons distribute that dprov evyapiotnbévta, the
bread over which he has thus given thanks :” and then saith
he over and above®, “the richer sort, and every one as he
shall think good, contributes, and that which is so raised is
left with the priest, who out of that stock succours the
orphan and widow, and becomes a common provider for all
that are in want.” ‘This clearly distinguishes two parts of
the offertory, one designed for the use of all the faithful in
the Sacrament, another reserved for the use of the poor; the
former called wpocdopai, “ oblations,” in the council of Lao-
dicea®, the other capzrodopiaz, in that of Gangra‘; and pro-
portionably, the repository for the first called sacrarium in
the fourth council of Carthage, can. 93*, (and by Possidonius,
in the life of St. Augustine!, secretarium unde altari necessaria

f (S. Just. M. Apost., i. c. 65. p. 82,
D. ed. Ben. See above, vol. ii. p.
106, g.]

8 [oi evmupodtes 5 Kal BovAdmevor,
Kata Tpoalpeciwy ExaoTos Thy éavuTor,
& BovAetat Bidwar Kal Td cvAAEydSpmevor
mapa T@ TpocoT@re amoriOer a, cal av-
Tos emikoupel dppavois Te kal xhpais,
kal Tols dia vdcov, 2 8 BAAny aitlav
Acimopevols, Kad Tois ev Becpots odo,
kal Tots wapemOnuots otct E€vots, Ka}
amA@s Tot ToIs ev xpeEla ovat KndEUmy
yiverat.—ld., ibid., pp. 83, E. 84, A.]

h (Cone. Laod. (3647) Canon xix.

HICKES,

Concilia, tom. i. p. 1533, D, et Canon
lviii. ibid., p. 1540, D; quoted above,
vol. ii. p. 116, note e. ]

i (Cone. Gangr. (324?) Canon vii.
ibid., tom. ii. col. 429, A.]

k [Oblationes dissidentium fratrum
neque in sacrario, neque in gazophyla-
cio recipiantur.—Cone. Carthag. iv.
(398.) Can. xciii. Concilia, tom. ii. col.
1444, D.]

1 [Possidii (al. Possidonii) Vit. S.
Augustin., ec. xxiy. pp. 104, 105; Aug,
Vind. 1764. |

NIES.
MMOND.

APPENDIX,

NO. VU.

1 Cor, 10.
18.

Phil. 4. 18.

258 The original and primitive use of the Offertory ;

inferuntur, “where those things are laid, and from whence
fetched, which are necessary to the altar,”’) the other gazo-
phylacium, or “treasury.” The first St. Cyprian calls sacrificia,
“ sacrifices™,” the second eleemosyne, “alms,” (Lid. de Op. et
Eleem.,) parallel to those which we find both together men-
tioned, Acts xxiv. 17, “I came to bring alms to my nation,
and offerings.” This, saith Justin Martyr, (Dial. cum Tryph.,
p. 260") “is our Christian sacrifice ;” which will more appear
to him that considers, that the feasting of the people, their
partaking of the sacrifice, having their towas and pepisas,
was always annexed to sacrifices, both among Jews and
heathens, which the Apostle calls “partaking of the altar ;”
and consequently that the sacrifice and the feast together,
the sacrifice in the offertory, the feast in the eating and
drinking there, do complete and make up the whole business
of this Sacrament, as far as the people are concerned in it ;
and all this blessed by the priest, and God blessed and praised
by the priest and people, and so the title of Eucharist belongs
toit. Thus after Justin, Irenzeus, lib. iv. c. 34°, “The offertory
of the Christians is accounted a pure sacrifice with God, as
when St. Paul,” saith he, ‘“ mentions the acts of the Philip-
pians’ liberality, he calls them @vciav dexryv, ‘an acceptable
service,” (and so Heb. xiii. 16, “To do good and to commu-
nicate forget not,” such acts of liberality to those that want,
“for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,”) and presently
defines what this sacrifice was, primitie earum que sunt ejus
creaturarum, “the first-fruits of God’s creatures.” So Ter-
tullian, Apol., c. 39°, modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua
die adponit, “every one brings somewhat every month,” just
parallel to our offertory at monthly communions. Much
more might be said of this out of ancient constitutions and
canons, if it were not for my desire of brevity. Effectually
St. Cyprian, (De Op. et Eleemos., p. 2804,) Locuples et dives es,

m [See below, note q. ]

n [S. Just. M., Dial. cum Tryph.
Jud., ¢. 41. p. 138, A. ed. Ben. See
above, vol. ii. p. 103. ]

_° [Quoniam igitur Ecclesia cum
simplicitate offert, juste munus ejus
purum sacrificium apud Deum depu-
tatum est. Quemadmodum et Paulus
Philippensibus ait, &c. ‘hostiam accep-
tabilem, &c,’—S. Iren. adv. Heer., lib.

iv. (c. 84. ed. Grabe,) c. 18. § 4. p. 250.
ed. Ben. ]

P | The words run, Menstrua die, vel
cum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo
possit apponit.—Tert. Apol., c, xxxix.
Ops p:roll, 35]

4 [S. Cypr. de Opere et Eleemosynis,
p. 280. ed. Erasm. Ant. 1541. Op.,
p. 242. ed. Ben.; quoted inaccurately.
See above, vol, i. p. 99, note q. |

expressions respecting it wrongly adduced for the Mass. 259

et Dominicum celebrare te credis, et corbanam non respicis, qui TEST™M0-
in dominicum sine sacrificio venis, qui partem de sacrificio quod Be oe
pauper obtulit, sumis? “ Art thou rich, and thinkest thou
receivest as thou oughtest, and respectest not the corban,
feedest on the poor men’s sacrifice, and bringest none thy-
self?” And St. Augustine, (Serm. de temp. 215",) to the
same purpose; and it is worth observing, that many autho-
rities which the papists produce for the external sacrifice of
the body of Christ in the mass, are but the detorsion and
disguising of those places which belong to the offertory of
the people; and in the canon of the mass that prayer which
is used for the offering up of Christ, (larded with so many
crosses,) plainly betrays itself to have been first instituted in
relation to these gifts and oblations, as appears by the men-
tion of Abel’s sacrifice, and Melchisedec’s offering’, (that of
Abel’s the firstlings of the flock, Melchisedec’s a present only
of bread and wine to Abraham,) and the per quem hec omnia
semper bona creas‘, (by whom thou createst all these good
things,) which belongs evidently to the firstlings of the flock,
those living creatures sacrificed by Abel, but is by them now
most ridiculously applied to the body of Christ. I have been
thus large in shewing the original of the offertory, because it
has in all ages been counted a special part of divine worship,
“the third part of the Christian holocaust,” saith Aquinas",
(2°. 2°. quest. 85. art. 3. ad 2,) the observation of which is yet
alive in our liturgy, (I would it had a more cheerful universal
reception in our practice,) especially if that be true which
Honorius saith*, that instead of the ancient oblation of bread
and wine, the offering of money was by consent received into

* [Secundum vires eleemosynas pau-

peribus exhibete, oblationes que in al-
tari consecrentur offerte.— Pseudo- Aug.
Serm. celxv. (al. Serm. de Temp. 215.)
ap. S. Aug., Op., tom. v. App. col. 436,
F.
; {Canon Missz (ap. Missale Roma-
num.) The words are the same as those
quoted from S. Greg. Sacram., above,
vol. ii. p. 144, note ec. |

t [Per Christum Dominum nostrum,
per quem, &c.—Ibid., paul. inf. ]

« [Ad secundum dicendum, quod tri-
plex est hominis bonum. .. Tertium est
bonum exteriorum rerum, de quo sa-

crificium offertur Deo, &c.—S. Thom,
Aquin. Summa Theol. Secunda Secun-
dz Quest. Ixxxv. art. 3. ad 2.]

x [Statutum est... ut populus pro
oblatione farine denarios offerrent, pro
quibus traditum Dominum recognosce~
rent, qui tamen denariiin usum paupe-
rum, qui membra sunt Christi, cede-
rent, vel in aliquid quod ad hoe sacri-
ficium per*ineret.—Honorius Augusto-
dunensis, Gemma Anime, de antiquo
ritu Misse, lib. i. c. 66. ap Bibl. Magn.
Patrum, tom. xii. par. i. p. 1026, D, E.
Colon. 1618. ]

APPENDIX.

NO. VIL.

HAMMOND.

DODWELL.

260 Hammond on our belief in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

the Church in memory of the pence in Judas’s sale. Now
that this offering of Christians to God for pious and charit-
able uses, designed to them who are His proxies and deputy
receivers, may be the more liberally,and withal more solemnly
performed, many portions of Scripture are by the liturgy de-
signed to be read, to stir up and quicken this bounty; and
those of three sorts, some belonging to good works in gene-
ral, others to alms-deeds, others to oblations; and when it is
received and brought to the priest, he humbly prays God to
accept those alms: and this is it which I call the service of
the offertory, so valued and esteemed among all ancients, &c.

[Hammonp.] Prerace To Dispatcner DisPaTcHen, p. 164’.

The Protestants of the Church of England believe and re-
verence as much as any the sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the
most substantial and essential act of our religion; and doubt
not but the word missa, “ mass,” has fitly been used by the
western Church to signify it; and herein abhor and condemn
nothing but the corruptions and mutilations which the Church
of Rome, without care of conforming themselves to the uni-
versal, have admitted in the celebration.

Dopwett vr Jure Larcorum Sacerporatt, [cap.i. § 4.]
p. 12;,18%.

Male itaque Tertuliianum explicant rursus eruditi® viri de id
genus tinctione atque oblatione, que pro suis saltem ecclesie
Romane principiis, non sint officiis sacerdotalibus accensende.
Baptismum laicis, etiam mulieribus obstetricibus concedunt Ro-
manenses. Adeo nullam includit, pro eorum sententia, potesta-
tem sacerdotalem. Sic et illa donorum oblatio, seu eulogiarum,
seu panis etiam (ante tamen quam consecraretur) eucharistici,
laicorum potius spectabat officium, quam sacerdotum proprie
sic dictorum. Offerebant enim illa dona sacerdotibus laici,
Deo deinceps ab illis offerenda: non ipsi Deo immediate, quod
proprium erat ipsorum sacerdotum.

» [The Dispatcher Dispatched. A Dodwell. Lond., 1685. See above, vol.i.
third Defence of the Treatise of Schism. _p. 239. ]

By H. Hammond. London, 1659. > [Albasp. de I’ Euch., liv. ii. c. 8.
Works, vol. ii. p. 164, ed. 1684. ] p. 251. ad cale. Op., S. Optat. Par.

a [De Jure Laicorum Sacerdotali,ex 1679. Petav. de Potestate Consecrandi
sententia Tertulliani, &c., ab Henrico Diatriba, c. i. p. 4. Par. 1639.]

Dodwell on the Oblations, Priesthood, Sacrifice. 261

Isip., [§ 16.] p.44, 45. Quid ni igitur episcopos eodem illo
typici sacerdotii nomine et honore insigniamus ? Ignatium certe
aliosque insigniisse veteres alibi ostendimus. Nec negari certe
potest honorem quemcunque habent, a Christo eum habere, et
in Eum redundare omnes proinde illorum contemptus atque con-
tumelias. Christum itaque representent necesse est, unamque
constituant cum eo in lege, personam. Alioqui nulla posset
esse ratio, cur ad Christum pertineat que in illos admittitur
contumelia. Negari iterum non potest, quecunque locum ha-
bent in Christianismo, sacrificia ea etiam ad officium episcopo-
rum attinere, nec ab alio esse quam a Christo eorum etiam
illam sacrificandi potestatem, nec aliud representari in eucha-
ristia sacrificium, quam Christi illud in cruce, quod et in ceelis
hodieque a Christo representatur. Qui ergo Christum in ipsa
etiam sacrificandi potestate representant, quidni illos pro re-
presentatitis sacerdotibus habeamus ?

[Dopwett.] One Attar, &c. c. xi. § 1°.

But that which more nearly concerns the design of this
present way of reasoning is, that these sacrifices and this
high-priesthood of the gospel were mystical, and so mystical
as not only to signify, but also to perform what was, accord-
ing to the sense of those times, to be expected from myste-
ries. ... that the Eucharist was the mystical sacrifice, per-
forming the same thing under the gospel as the external
bloody sacrifices under the law, and that their bishops were
the mystical high-priests, exactly answering them in that
very particular office of uniting with the Adyos.

Anp § 2°. And therefore the public sacrifices being de-
signed as ceremonies of admission to a league and covenant,
and intimate union with God, such a kind of sacrifice was
requisite to be asserted to our mystical Israelitism, as might
engage God in covenant with us, and admit us to a mystical
union with Him.

Anp § 5°. Accordingly I am very apt to think, that this
is indeed the true original of the name of Eucharist, as ap-
plied by the primitive Christians to this very Sacrament,

¢ [A Discourse concerning the one 1683. ]
Altar and the one Priesthood, &c., by d [Id., ibid., pp. 298, 299. ]
H. Dodwell, M.A., p. 296. London, e [{Id., ibid., pp. 305, 306. |

TESTIMO-
NIES.
DODWELL,

DODWELL,

APPENDIX.

NO, VII.

PATRICK,

262

Patrick on the commemorative and

that they intended thereby to signify that this was among
them to perform the office of a sacrifice of thanksgiving.
The very name was thus commonly applied to the bread
itself in the time of St. Justin Martyr. So he tells us ex-
pressly, (Apol. ii. p. 97'.) Kat 9 tpodn atirn Kareitar trap
Hiv evyaploTia.

Patrick’s Mensa Mystica, pp. 15, 168.

It will not be unprofitable to add, that this was one reason
why the ancients called this action a sacrifice, (which the
Romanists now so much urge,) because it doth represent the
sacrifice which Christ once offered. It is a figure of His
death, [which we commemorate,| unto which the Apostle
St. Paul (as a learned man conceives") has a reference, when
he saith to the Galatians, c. ni. 2, “that Jesus Christ was
set forth evidently before their eyes crucified among them.”
They saw as it were His sacrifice on the cross, it was so
lively figured in this Sacrament. And it is very plain that
St. Chrysostom (or whosoever was the author of those Com-
mentaries) understood no more, when as he thus speaks upon
the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hom. 27. Ti otv; sets nad
EKACTHV Tépav ov Tpoodépomev, K.T-r.' “ What then? do
we not offer every day? Yet we offer by making a com-
memoration (avauvnow) of His death... And we do not
make another sacrifice every day, but always the same, or
rather a remembrance of a sacrifice.” Such an unbloody
sacrifice which is only rememorative and in representation
we all acknowledge.

Tbid., pp. 37, 38. Yea, they may know that the bread
and wine of the Eucharist is an offering (out of the stock
of the whole congregation) to this service, according as it
was in the primitive times, when (as Justin saith, Apol. 1*.)
“they offered bread and wine to the zpoectas, chief minis-

£ [S. Just. M. Apol.i. c. 65. Op., p.

tationes Theologiz xviii. Disp. v. de
83, A. ed. Ben. }

Coena Domini; art. 1. Lugd. Bat.1648.) ]

& [Mensa Mystica; or a Discourse
concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper, &c., by Simon Patrick, D.D.
(London, 1677.) The pages and extracts
agree with the fifth edition of 1684. ]

» (L’Empereur. (Constantini Ce-
saris alias L’Empereur SS. Theol. in
Leidensi Academia Professoris Dispu-

i [S. Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebr.,
Hom. 17. Op., tom. xii. p. 168, D; 169,
A. See above, vol. i. p. 28,h. There
is no reason to question the genuine-
ness of these Homilies. ]

k [S. Just. M. Apol. i. ¢. 65. p. 82,
D. ed. Ben. See above, vol. ii. p. 106,

g.]

representative Sacrifice in the Eucharist. 263

ter of the brethren, who took it, and gave praise and glory
to the Lord of the whole world, and then made (é7? wonv) a
large and prolix thanksgiving to Him that had made them
worthy of such gifts.” We pray Him therefore, in our com-
munion service, to accept our oblations (meaning those of
bread and wine) as well as our alms. We still make Aoyexnjv
Kal axatvov Ovolay (as Origen’s phrase is), “ a rational and
unsmoky sacrifice ;” for we offer ourselves, and our prayers,
and our praises, and our goods, So that if you please we
may call the table of the Lord Xoyixny tpdefav (in Theo-
doret’s style) “a rational table,” where as God provides for
us, So we provide for Him in those that are His members, and
offer upon it those sacrifices which are most befitting either
Him or rational creatures.

ANSWER TO THE BisHor or Conpom’s ExPosITION OF THE
Caruouic Farru, § 14, p. 821.

So that when M. Condom tells us from the council of
Trent™, “that this sacrifice is instituted only to represent
that which was once accomplished on the cross, to perpetuate
the memory of it, and to apply its saving virtue for the re-
mission of sins which we daily commit:” all this must be
allowed true, and the proper ends of the institution of the
holy Sacrament; but the council pleads them, &c.

Fuxt View or tHe Doctrines anp Practicks or THE
ANCIENT CHURCH RELATING TO THE EvcHarist, pp. 101
—103",

I have already produced the testimonies where the fathers
make what is distributed in the Eucharist to be without life
or sense, which can be true of nothing else but of the bread
and wine; so that unless we make them distribute what
they had not consecrated, the bread and wine must remain
after consecration. ‘The same is also evidently proved from
another common assertion of the fathers, “ that Christ offered

! [An answer to the Bishop of Con-
dom, now of Meaux, (Bossuet,) his Ex-
position of the Catholic Faith; Sect.
xiv. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Lon-
don, 1686. This work is attributed to
Mr. John Gilbert, M.A., of Hart Hall.]

™ [Concil. Trident. Sess. xxii. cap. 1.
Concilia, tom. xx. col. 128, E; quoted
above, vol. ii. p. 183, note d.]

n [This work was written by Bishop
Patrick, but published anonymously,
London, 1688. }

TESTIMO-
NIES.

PATRICK.

[ ANON. |

PATRICK,

APPENDIX.

NO. VIL.

264 Patrick. Testimonies of the Fathers that Christ

the same oblation with Melchisedec.” St. Cyprian, lb. i.
epist. 3°: Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus
noster Jesus Christus, qui sacrifictum Deo Patri obtulit hoc
idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est panem et vinum, suum
scilicet corpus et sanguinem? ‘Who was more a priest of
the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered
a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this same that
Melchisedec had offered, that is bread and wine, to wit His
body and blood?” Which indeed the wine and bread was
by representation; but if you understand this of proper flesh
and blood offered in the Eucharist, then it is not the same
oblation with that of Melchisedec.

Isidore Peleusiota, lib. 1. Epist. 481, ad Pallad.? Mendyuce-
dé dpt@ Kal olv@ iepatevwr, bu’ av TOV TOV Gel@y puoTnpiov
mpoeonmawe tvTov: Melchisedec performed his sacred
office in bread and wine, by which he fore-signified the type
of the divine mysteries.”

Eusebius, lib. v. Dem. Evang., c. 39. “Qomep éxeivos (Mel-
chisedec) iepevs €Ovadv Tuyydver, ovdapyod daivetat Ovoiats
TMmaTiKais Keypnwevos, olv@ SE wovmw Kai dpTw Tov "ABpaau
EVNOYOV, TOV AUTOV O€ TPOTTOV, K.T-A. oiv@ Kal aApTw TOU TE
TOLATOS AVTOV Kal TOD GwTHplov aimatos aivitToYTaL Ta
pevotypia, TOU Medyioedéx tadta Trvevpat. Yelm tpoTebew-
pNKOTOS, Kal TOV peANCVYT@Y Tals ELKOTL TPOKEXpHMLEVOV :
‘‘For as he (Melchisedec) being a priest of the Gentiles,
never seems to have made use of bodily sacrifices, but
blessed Abraham only in bread and wine; after the same
manner also, first our Lord and Saviour Himself, then all
the priests that derive from Him, performing im all nations
their spiritual function according to the ecclesiastical sanc-
tions, by bread and wine do express the mysteries of His
body and saving blood, Melchisedec having foreseen these
things by a divine spirit, and having used before these
images of future things.”

St. Jerom. Epist. ad Evagr.* Melchisedec pane et vino

Op., p. 105. ed. Ben. See vol. i. p. 94.] r [S. Hieron. Epist. Ixxili, ad
P [S. Isidor. Pelusiot. Ep. cecexxxi. Evangelum (al. Evagrium.) Op., tom.
ad Palladium, lib. i. p. 110.] i. col. 440, B; for the true reading, see

4 [Euseb, Dem, Evyan., lib. v. p. 228, above, vol. ii. p. 110. note 1.]

offered the same oblation as Melchisedec. 265

simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicaverit Sacramentum :
*“ Melchisedec, by bread and wine, which is a simple and a
pure sacrifice, did dedicate Christ’s Sacrament.”

St. August. Epist. 95%. Melchisedec prolato Sacramento
mense! dominice novit eternum ejus sacerdotium figurare :
“ Melchisedec bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper, (i.e. bread and wine,) knew how to figure Christ’s
eternal priesthood'.” Again, lib. xvii. de Civit. Dei, c. 17, upon
those words, “Thou art a priest for ever,” &c., he adds, Kx
eo quod jam nusquam est sacerdotium et sacrificium secundum
ordinem Aaron, et ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo quod
protulit Melchisedec quando benedixit Abraham: ‘“ Since now
there is nowhere any priesthood or sacrifice according to
the order of Aaron, and that is every where offered under
Christ the priest, which Melchisedec brought forth when he
blessed Abraham.” In many other places St. Augustine says
the same.

Arnobius in Psalm. 109". Christus per mysterium panis et
vini factus est sacerdos in eternum: “Christ, by the mystery
of the bread and wine, is made a priest for ever.”

St. Chrysostom in Psalm. 110, vel 109*.
Tipia, OTL KaKelvos apTov Kal olvoy mpoonveyKxe TO ’ABpady.
Why did he say a priest after the order of Melchisedec,
“even because of the mysteries, because he also brought out
bread and wine to Abraham.”

Isidor. Hisp. in Gen. c. 11%. Non secundum Aaron pecu-
dum victimas, sed oblationem panis et vini, id est corporis et
sanguinis ejus sacramentum in sacrificium offeramus: ‘ Let
us not offer the victims of beasts according to Aaron, but
let us offer in sacrifice the oblation of bread and wine, 1. e.
the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood.”

Bed. Hom. de 55. in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt.* Redemptor noster
ideo sacerdos esse dicitur secundum ordinem Melchisedec, quia

Kai 61a ta pvo-

s [S. August. Epist. elxxvii. (al.

xey.) ad Innocentium. Op., tom. ii. col.
626, D.]

t [Id., de Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 17.
Op., tom. vii. col. 480, C.]

% [Qui per mysterium panis ac vini
sacerdos factus est in aternum.—Ar-
nob. in Psal. cix. ap. Bibl. Vet. Patr.,
tom. v. par. iii, p. 291, H. Col. Ag.

HICKES,

1618. }

x [S. Chrys. in Psal. cix. § 8. Op.,
tom. v. p. 262, A, B.]

¥ [S. Isid. Hisp. Alleg. in Vet. Test.
in Gen, c. 11.§ 5. Op., tom. v. p. 298. J

z [S. Bed. Hom. Adstiv. de Sanctis
xxxii. in Vigil. S. Joan. Bapt. Op.,
tom. vii. (ap. tom. ii.) col. 96, ed. Col.
Agr. 1612. ]

TESTIMO-
NIES,
PATRICK,

1 [ccene,
Patrick ;
and ed, 3.]

APPENDIX,

NO, VII.

BENNET.

HUGHES,

266 The Holy Eucharist a Sacrifice.

ablatis victimis legalibus, idem sacrifictt genus in mysterium sui
corporis et sanguinis in Novo Testamento offerendum institutt :
“Our Redeemer is therefore called a priest after the order of
Melchisedec, because taking away the legal sacrifices, He
instituted the same kind of sacrifice, (viz. bread and wine,)
should be offered under the New Testament, for the mystery
of His body and blood.”

Mr. Bennet or THE Ricuts or THE CLERGY’, c. 3. p. 52.

But St. Clement of Rome, who wrote in the Apostles’
times, plainly speaks of the bishops presiding in the cele-
bration of the Lord’s Supper; for nothing else can be meant
by their “offering the gifts’, especially if we consider that
the Eucharistical elements are called a gift by St. Ignatius*®
himself, and that this language is used by innumerable other
writers, particularly those that are the most ancient; and it
is notorious that tpocgépecy signifies “to offer a sacri-
fice,” such as all antiquity thought the holy Eucharist to be,
and that this word is particularly applied to the holy Eucha-
rist by Justin Martyr? and all antiquity °.

Joannis Hucues, A.M., Cottecm Jesu apup CAnrTasr.
Socrus, 1N DissERTATIONE QUAM PR&EMISIT JOAN. Cury-
SOSTOMI DE SacERpDOTIO, libris vi. a se editis 1710, p. 134".

Voluit salvator noster, ut cruente sue passionis commemoratio
primarias in officiis publicis teneret partes, imo ut sacrificti com-
memorativi, typico illo, ac umbratil (quo Judei gaudebant) longe
nobilioris rationem haberet. Voluit itaque sine ulla dubitatione
publicam hance commemorationem a publicis ecclesie ministris
celebrari, sacrificium hoc commemorativum a publicis sacerdo-
tibus offerri. Vide pp. 135, 136, &c. 141, &e.

a [The Rights of the Clergy of the tom. ii, p. 36.]

Christian Church, by Thomas Bennet, - “¢ [S. Just. M. Dial. cum Tryph.,

M.A. London, 1711. ] ce. 41. Op., p. 188, A; quoted above,
> [S. Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Cor.i. vol. ii. p. 94, note b.]

c. 44. ap. Patr. Apost., tom. 1. p. 173; © [See above, vol. ii. p. 87, sqq. ]

quoted above, vol. ii. p. 88. | £ [This is the treatise translated in

° [tH dwpeG tod Ocod.—S. Ignat. the next number of the Appendix; Dis-
Epist. ad Smyrn.,c. 7. Patr. Apost., sertation v.]

Bishop Bull on the Sacrifice of the Mass. 267

Dr. Butx’s ANswER TO A QuErRyY oF THE BisHor or Mravxg,
IN ADDITION TO SEVERAL LETTERS BETWEEN Dr. GrorcE
Hitcxes, &c., p. 246, &e.

The first article I shall take notice of is this; “I profess,
that in the mass is offered to God a true, proper, and pro-
pitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in
the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, and
really, and substantially the body and blood, together with
the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: and that
there is wrought a conversion of the whole substance of the
bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine
into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
transubstantiation.” Where this proposition, “'Phat in the
mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory
sacrifice for the living and the dead,” having that other of
the “substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Eucharist” immediately annexed to it; the meaning of
it must necessarily be this, that in the Eucharist the very body
and blood of Christ are again offered up to God as a propitia-
tory sacrifice for the sins of men. Which is an impious pro-
position, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of Christ made
by His death on the cross, aud contrary to express Scripture,
Heb. .vii. 27; ix. 12, 15; 26, 28; x. 12, 14. It is true the
Eucharist is frequently called by the ancient fathers apoc-
dopa, Ovcia, “an oblation,” “a sacrifice.” But it is to be
remembered, that they say also it is @ucia NoyiKy, Kal avai-
paxTos, “areasonable sacrifice,” “a sacrifice without blood! :”
which how can it be said to be, if therein the very blood of
Christ were offered up to God?

® [The Corruptions of the Church
of Rome, in relation to Ecclesiastical
Government, and the Rule of Faith,
and Form of Divine Worship; in an-
swer to the Bishop of Meaux’s queries.
Lond. 1705. Bull’s Works, vol. ii. pp.
251, sqq. Oxford, 1827. This letter of
Bull was first published (entire) with
Hickes’ work entitled, Several Letters
which passed between Dr. George
Hickes and a popish priest; Lond.
1705. |

4 Profiteor in missa offerri Deo ve-
rum, proprium, et propitiatorium sacri-
ficium pro vivis et defunctis ; atque in

sanctissimo Eucharistiz Sacramento
esse vere, et realiter et substantialiter
corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima
et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
fierique conversionem totius substan-
tia panis in corpus, et totius substantiz
vini in sanguinem, quam conversionem
Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiatio-
nem appellat.—[{Professio Fidei apud
Bullam Pii IV. Pape. Concilia, tom.
xx. col. 221, D.}

i [Const. Apost., lib. vi. ec. 23. Con-
cilia, tom. i. p. 404, A. See above, vol. ii.

p: Lt]

TESTIMO-
NIES.

BP. BULL.

APPENDIX.

NO. Vil.

268 The doctrine of the ancients on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

They held the Eucharist to be a commemorative sacrifice,
and so do we. ‘This is the constant language of the ancient
liturgies* : ‘“ We offer by way of commemoration,” according
to our Saviour’s words when He ordained this holy rite’,
“ Do this in commemoration of Me.” In the Eucharist then,
Christ is offered, not hypostatically, as the Trent fathers have
determined, (for so He was but once offered,) but commemo-
ratively only ; and this commemoration is made to God the
Father, and is not a bare remembering, or putting ourselves
in mind of Him. For every sacrifice is directed to God, and
the oblation therein made, whatsoever it be, hath Him for
its object, and not man. In the holy Eucharist therefore,
we set before God the bread and wine, as “ figures or images
of the precious blood of Christ shed for us, and of His pre-
cious body,” (they are the very words of the Clementine
Liturgy™,) and plead to God the merit of His Son’s sacrifice
once offered on the cross for us sinners, and in this Sacra-
ment represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to
bestow His heavenly blessings on us.

To conclude this matter: the ancients held the oblation
of the Eucharist to be answerable in some respects to the
legal sacrifices ; that is, they believed that our blessed Saviour
ordained the sacrament of the Eucharist as a rite of prayer
and praise to God, instead of the manifold and bloody sacri-
fices of the law. That the legal sacrifices were rites to invo-
cate God by, is evident from many texts of Scripture; sce
especially 1 Sam. vu. 9; xii. 12; Ezra vi. 10; Prov. xv. 8.
And that they were also rites for praising and blessing God
for His mercies, appears from 2 Chron. xxix. 27. Instead
therefore of slaying of beasts, and burning of incense, whereby
they praised God, and called upon His name under the Old
Testament, the fathers, I say, believed our Saviour appointed
this Sacrament of bread and wine, as a rite whereby to give

K weuvnuevor mpoopéepomev, comme-
morantes, or commemorando offerimus.

patoroinocacba avtoy Sia Tovs TicTEV-
ovtas eis avrdyv. k.T.A. Op., pp. 168,

—([Const. Apost., lib. viii. c. 12. Con-
cilia, p. 473. See above, vol. ii. p. 123. ]

! TovUTO Tovetre eis Thy euyy avau-
vnow.—Vid. Justin Mart. Dial. cum
Tryph., p. 296, 297. [ed. Par. 1636.
Tov uprov dy Tapédwkev july 6 tweTEpos
Xpiords Tovey eis aveuyvnow Tov Te cw-

K. 169, A. ed. Ben. ]

™ rod Tiulov aluwatos “Incod Xpiotov
Tov exxudevTos iTép Hudy Kal TOU TL-
lov c@matos Ta aytitura.— Const
Apost., lib. vii. c. 26. [ap. Concilia, tom.
i, p. 428, D.]

Bishop Bull on the doctrine of transubstantiation. 269

thanks, and make supplication to His Father in His name.
This you may see fully cleared and proved by the learned
Mr. Mede, in his treatise entitled, The Christian Sacrifice".
The Eucharistical sacrifice thus explained, is indeed Aoyex?
Qucia, “a reasonable sacrifice,” widely different from that
monstrous sacrifice of the mass, taught in the Church of
Rome.

The other branch of the article is concerning transubstan-
tiation, wherein the ecclesiastic professeth upon his solemn
oath his belief, that in the Eucharist “ there is made a con-
version of the whole substance of the bread into the body,
and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of
Christ.” A proposition that bids defiance to all the reason
and sense of mankind. Nor (God be praised) hath it any
ground or foundation in divine revelation; nay, the text of
Scripture on which the Church of Rome builds this article,
duly considered, utterly subverts and overthrows it: she
grounds it upon the words of the institution of the holy
Sacrament by our Saviour, the same night wherein He was
betrayed, when He took bread and brake it, and gave it to
Tfis disciples, saying, “ This is My body,” 76 d:d0pevov, saith
St. Luke, 7o cA@pevor, saith St. Paul, “which is given and
broken for you.” After the same manner He took the cup,
and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “ Drink ye all
of this, for this is My blood of the New Testament,” to
éxyvomevov, “which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.” Now whatsoever our Saviour said, was undoubtedly
true; but these words could not be true in a proper
sense, for our Saviour’s body was not then given or broken,
but whole and inviolate, nor was there one drop of His blood
yet shed. The words therefore must necessarily be under-
stood in a figurative sense, and then what becomes of the
doctrme of transubstantiation ? The meaning of our Saviour
is plainly this: What I now do is a representation of My
death and passion near approaching, and what I now do, do
ye hereafter, do this in remembrance of Me, let this be a
standing, perpetual ordinance in My Church to the end of
the world; let My death be thus annunciated and shewn
forth, till I come to judgment: see 1 Cor. xi. 26.

« (The Christian Sacrifice, a Dis- Mede’s death) 1648. See above, vol. ii.
course on Mal. i. J1, published (after p. 90. |

TESTIMO-
NIES.
BP. BULL.

APPENDIX,
NO. VII,

270 The primitive doctrine respecting the effect of

As little foundation hath this doctrine of transubstantia-
tion in the ancient Church, as appears sufficiently from what
hath been already said concerning the notion then univer-
sally received of the Eucharistical sacrifice. It was then be-
lieved to be an avduvyors, or “ commemoration,” by the sym-
bols of bread and wine, of the body and blood of Christ, once
offered up to God on the cross for our redemption; it could
not therefore be then thought an offering up again to God
of the very body and blood of Christ, substantially present
under the appearance of bread and wine; for these two
notions are inconsistent, and cannot stand together. The
ancient doctors, yea and liturgies of the Church °, affirm the
Eucharist to be incruentum sacrificium, “a sacrifice without
blood ;” which it cannot be said to be, if the very blood of
Christ were therein present, and offered up to God. In the
Clementine Liturgy, the bread and wine in the Eucharist
are said to be antitypa”, “correspondent types, figures and
images” of the precious body and blood of Christ. And
divers others of the fathers speak in the same plain lan-

guage. Vid. Greg. Naz., Apol. Orat.i. tom. 1.9; Cyril Hi-
erosol. v. Cat. Myst.*; Ambros. de Sacrament., lib. iv.
cap. 4:5.

We are not ignorant that the ancient fathers generally
teach, that the bread and wine in the Eucharist, by or upon
the consecration of them, do become aud are made the “ body
and blood of Christ ;’ but we know also, that though they
do not all explain themselves in the same way, yet they do
all declare their sense to be very dissonant from the doctrine
of transubstantiation. Some of the most ancient doctors of
the Church, as Justin Martyr‘ and Irenzus", seem to have

° [See the Christian Priesthood,
chap. ii. sect. 10. vol. ii. pp. 111—113,
97, 129, e. 182, o. 135, e. 186, 1,]

P (Const. Apost. vii: 26. ap. Conci-
lia, tom. i. p. 428, D.]

4 [Thy Tév meyarGv pvornpley ayTi-
tuTov.—S. Greg. Naz. Orat. ii. (al. i.)
Apolog., § 95. Op., tom. i. p. 56, D.
See above, vol. i. p. 91, note a.

r [ove &prov kal otvov KeAevovTat
yevourOat, GAAG dvritrirou oéuaros Kad
aiuwatos Tod Xpiorod.—S. Cyr. Hier. Ca-
techesis Myst. v. § 20. Op., p. 331, C.]

S [Similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis
bibis.—S. Ambros. de Sacram., lib. iv.
c. 4. § 20. Op., tom. ii. col. 370, 371.

See also c. v. § 21. p. 371,B.... quod
figura est corporis et sanguinis Domini
nostri, &c.; quoted above, see vol. ii.
p. 143, note a. |

* [dv tpdmrov 51a Adyou @cod capko-
moinels Inoovs Xpiotbs 6 cwrhp Huay,
Kal capa kal aiva brep Twrypias Hudy
éoxev, odTws Kal THy BV evxis Adyou
Tov Tap avTov evxXapicbeicay Tpopyy, ek
fis aiwa kal capes KaTa peTaBoArAhy TpE-
povTat Huey, ekeivou Tod capKoTroinbEer-
Tos "Inood kat cdpKa Kal aiwa eb:5dx6-
bev elvat.—sS. Just. M. Apol. i. ¢. 66.
p. 83. ed. Ben. (p. 129. ed. Grabe.) ]

“ls yap ard ys uptos mpooAau-
Bavomevos Thy ExkAnow Tod Ocod, ovKere

the Consecration of the Elements in the Eucharist. 271

had this notion, that by or upon the sacerdotal benediction,
the spirit of Christ, or a divine virtue from Christ, descends
upon the elements, and accompanies them to all worthy
communicants, and that therefore they are said to be and
are the body and blood of Christ; the same divinity which
is hypostatically united to the body of Christ in heaven,
being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine on
earth. Which also seems to be the meaning of all the
ancient liturgies, in which it is prayed*, “that God would
send down His Spirit upon the bread and wine in the
Eucharist.” And this doubtless is the meaning of Origen
in his eighth book against Celsus, p. 399, where speaking of
the holy Eucharist, he says’ that therein “we eat bread by
prayer (i.e. by the prayer of consecration for the descent
of the divine Spirit upon it) made a certain holy body, which
also sanctifies those, who with a sound or sincere purpose of
heart use it.” But that neither Justin Martyr, nor Irenzus,
nor Origen, ever dreamed of the transubstantiation of the
elements, is most evident; for Justin Martyr and Ireneus
do both of them plainly affirm’, that by eating and drink-
ing the bread and wine in the Eucharist “our bodies are
nourished,” and that the “bread and wine are digested, and
turned into the substance of our bodies ;’’? which to affirm
of the glorified body of Christ were impious and blasphemous,
and to affirm the same of the mere accidents of the bread
and wine, would be very absurd and ridiculous. And Origen
expressly saith, “that what we eat in the Eucharist is bread,
but bread sanctified and made holy by prayer; and which,
by the divine virtue that accompanies it, sanctifieth all those
who worthily receive it.” He that would see more of this
notion of the ancient fathers, and particularly those places

Kkowds &ptos éotlv, GAN evxapiotia, ex
, ~ ’
dvo Tpayudtwy cuvecTykvia, emvyetou TE

129, sqq. |

y [U&prous eoPlouev cHua yevouevous

kal ovpaviou’ obtws Kal Ta THuaTa nUaY
peTadauBdvovta THs edxapioTias, un-
KeTt elvar pOapta, thy eAmida Tis eis
ai@vas avactdcews exovta.—S. Iren.
contra Heres., lib. iv. c. 18. (c. 34
ed. Grabe,) § 5. Op., p. 251. For the
words of other fathers see above, vol. ii.
pp- 96, sqq- ]

* [See the Christian Priesthood,
chap. ii. sect. 10. vol. ii. pp. 97 and

dia Thy edxhy Gyidv Tt Kal aylafov robs
ber’ Srytovs mpobcews adTS Xpwpevous.
—Orig. cont. Celsum, lib. viii. c. 33.
Op., tom. i, p. 766, D, E.]

[See note t; and St. Irenzus’
words: mas tiv odpKka A€youcw eis
popay xwpeiv, Kal po) petéxe Tis
Cwis, Tv ard ToD TdmaTos TOU Kuplov
kal Tod alwaros avTod Tpepouernv.—

Ibid. |

TESTIMO-
NIES.

BP. BULL,

272 Different opinions on transubstantiation

APPENDIX,

ep of Justin Martyr* and Ivenzus, fully cleared and vindicated

from the forced and absurd glosses of the Romanists, may
consult my learned friend Mr. Grabe, in his notes upon
Justin Martyyr’s first Apology of his own edition, pp. 128, 129°,
but especially in his large and elaborate Annotation upon

Trenzeus, lib. iv. cap. 34°.
I shall dismiss this article with this one only observation,
that after the prodigious doctrine of transubstantiation was
‘[“fourth.”] confirmed by the first! Lateran council‘, there were many
in the communion of the Church of Rome who could not
digest it, did not in truth believe it, and wished from their
hearts that their Church had never defined it. For this
we have the ample testimonies of very eminent writers of
that Church. “'The conversion of the bread and wine into
Christ’s body and blood,” saith Cajetan, par. 3. qu. 75.
Article 1.°, “all of us do teach in words: but indeed many
deny it, thinking nothing less. These are diversely divided
one from another: for some by the conversion that is in the
Sacrament, understand nothing but identity of place; that is,
that the bread is therefore said to be made the body of Christ,
because where the bread is, the body of Christ becomes
present also. Others understand by the word ‘ conversion,’
nothing else but the order of succession; that is, that the
body succeedeth, and is under the veils of accidents, under
which the bread, which they suppose to be annihilated, was
3 [oy Tpdmov 51a Adyou @cod rapko-

1215.) Decret. cap. i. Concilia, tom.

models ° Inoovs Xpiorbs 6 0 Tor ip TL@v,
ka) odpka kal aiua bmep oornplas TLV
eaXev, ott ws Kal THY BV evx TS Adyou TOU
map" avTov ebxapiornbeio ay Tpopyy, ee
As aiwa Kal _odpkes Kata peTaBoAry
TpépovTat NuaY, exelvou TOD TapkoToLn-
OévTos *Incod kal odpKa kal aia edidax-
Onuev civat.—s. Just. M. Apol. i. c. 66.
Op., p. 83, B.]

» [The notes are on the passage
quoted above, note t.—S. Just. Mart.
Apol. i. cum notis J. E. Grabe. Oxon.
1700.]

4 [Cujus corpus et sanguis in sacra-
mento altaris sub speciebus panis et
vini veraciter contineri; transubstan-
tiatis, pane in corpus, et vino in sangui-
nem, &c.—Cone. Lateran. IV. (A.D.

xiii. pp. 929, 930. |

[Verum novitatem conversionis
licet omnes voce affirment, secundum
rem tamen multi negarunt, putantes se
non negare illam. Et hi multifariam
sunt divisi, dum quidam intelligunt
conversionis nomine identitatem loci, ut
hae ratione dicatur panem fieri corpus
Christi: quia ubi est panis, est et corpus
Christi. .... Quidam vero conver-
sionis nomine intelligunt successionis
ordinem,.... ut hac ratione dicatur
panem converti in corpus Christi, quia
corpus Christi est post consecrationem
sub accidentibus, sub quibus erat panis,
quem panem annihilari, aut solvi in
prejacentem materiam dicebant. —
Thome de Vio Card. Cajetani Com-
ment. in D, Thom. Aquin. Summam ;
pars iii. de Sacram. Quest. xvi. (al.
75.) Art. i, p. 161. Venet. 1596.]

held by Roman Catholics since the Lateran decree.

before.” Occam!‘, Centiloquii conclus., cap. 19, saith, “There
are three opinions about transubstantiation, of which the
first supposeth a conversion of the sacramental elements,
the second the annihilation, the third affirmeth the bread to
be in such manner transubstantiated into the body of Christ,
that it is no way changed in substance, or substantially con-
verted into Christ’s body, or doth cease to be, but only that
the body of Christ in every part of it becomes present in
every part of the bread.” Waldensis?, tom. ii. de Sacram.
Eucharistie, cap.19, reports out of Christopolitanus Zacharias’
book, entitled Quatuor unum", “ that there were some, perhaps
many, but hardly to be discerned and noted, who thought
still as Berengarius did.” The same Waldensis, in the
same book, cap. 643, saith, “that some supposed the con-
version that is in the Sacrament to be, in that the bread
and wine are assumed into the unity of Christ’s person ;
some thought it to be by way of impanation, and some by

273

£ [In materia ista est triplex opinio.
Quarum prima est hee que ponit,
quod in consecratione hostiz, panis,
quod subjectum est accidentibus istius
hostiz, transubstantiatur in corpus
Christi; ad istum intellectum, quod
talis transubstantiatio est quodammo-
do transsumptio et conversio panis in
corpus Christi: qua transsumptione
facta, non est ibi panis; sed accidentia
que prius fuerunt in pane tam-
quam in subjecto, postea existunt sine
subjecto. Secunda opinio ponit con-
similiter quod in consecratione hostiz,
panis transubstantiatur in corpus
Christi, non ut ipse panis aliquo modo
convertatur in corpus Christi ex quo
prius fuit, secundum se et secundum
quamlibet ejus partem; sed ad istum
intellectum, quod talis transubstan-
tiatio nihil aliud est quam panem desi-
nere esse, et verum corpus Christi sub
aceidentibus hostiz existere vel con-
sistere ; et sic adhue illa opinio ponit
quod illa accidentia hostize consecrate
sunt sine subjecto. Tertia opinio est,
que adhue ponit quod panis hostiz
transubstantiatur in corpus Christi,
non quod aliquo modo mutetur vel
convertatur in corpus Christi, sicut
opinio -prima ponit; nec etiam quod
panis desinat esse, sicut secunda ponit;
sed ad istum intellectum, quod ista
transubstantiatio in corpus Christi ni-
hil aliud est quam quod corpus Christi,

HICKES,

virtute verborum sacramentalium, se-
cundum se totum et quamlibet sui par-
tem, coexistit cuilibet sui (sic) parti
panis.—-M. Guil. de Ocham. Centilo-
qium Theologicarum conclusionum
Concl. xxxix. C. ed. Lugd. 1495. ]

g [Prout in libro suo, Quatuor
unum, tractans hune textum, ‘ Hoc
facite in meam commemorationem,’
Chrysopolitanus suggerit Zacharias.
Sunt (inquiens) nonnulli, imo forsan
multi, sed vix notari possunt, qui cum
damnato Berengario idem sentiunt,
tamen eundem cum ecclesia damnant.
—Thom. Waldensis Doctrinale Anti-
quitatum Fidei, tom. ii. de Sacramen-
tis, c. 19. fol. 36. Venet. 1671. ]

h [Zacharie Epise. Chrysopolitani
(A.D. 1101) In Unum ex Quatuor,
sive de Concordia Evangelistarum ;
lib. iv. c. 156. ap. Bibl. Max. Patr.,
tom. xix. p. 916, D. Lugd. 1677.]

i [The words of Waldensis are,
Fidem hujus conversionis simplicis
panis in corpus Christi per transub-
stantiationem altissimi Witcleff negat,
et dissimulat, rem tollens, et termi-
num fallaciter ab ecclesia sensu per-
vertens, consequens Berengarianam
perfidiam tripertitam. Nam _ primi
conversionem istam per viam identifi-
cationis suppositorum efficiunt. Se-
cundi per viam impanationis. Tertii
per viam appellationis figuralis, et tro-
pice, cum quibus currit Witcleff.

TESTIMO-
NIES.

BP. BULL.

APPENDIX.

NO. VII.

PATRICK,

274 The Oblation as recognised in our service :

way of figurative and tropical appellation. The first and
second of these opinions found the better entertainment in
some men’s minds, because they grant the essential presence
of Christ’s body, and yet deny not the presence of the bread
still remaining, to sustain the appearing accidents.” These
opinions he reports to have been “very acceptable to many,
not without sighs wishing the Church had decreed that men
should follow one of them.”

Patrick’s CuristIan Sacririce, pp. 77, 78*.

It is certain that it was not common bread and wine which
the ancient Christians prayed might become the body and
blood of Christ to them; but bread and wine first sanctified,
by being offered to God with thanksgiving’, and presented
to Him with due acknowledgments, that He was the Lord
and Giver of all things. After which followed a thankful
mention of the great love of God, in sending His Son to
redeem mankind by His death, represented by that holy
bread and wine broken and poured out, in commemoration
of His passion. This was the principal thing of all, which
our Church therefore expressly puts us in mind of, in the
words now recited, and distinctly acknowledges in the prayer
of consecration. As for the other, that also is to be under-
stood when you see the bread and wine set upon God’s table
by him that ministers in this divine service. Then it is offered
to God; for whatsoever is solemnly placed there, becomes by
that means a thing dedicated and appropriated to Him.

And if you observe the time when this bread and wine is
ordered to be placed there, which is immediately after the
alms of the people have been received for the poor, you will
see that it is intended by our Church to be a thankful obla-

tion to God of the fruits of the earth.

Primi tamen, et secundi majorem fa-
vorem in quorundam mentibus obti-
nent: quia ponunt Christi corpus pra-
sens secundum suam essentiam. Et
quia ponunt panem adesse propter sus-
tentificationem accidentium, multis
grati sunt voventibus, et quasi suspi-
rantibus, quod sic ecclesia decrevisset,
quia fuisset, ut putabant, via levis.
Id., ibid., c, 64. fol. 109. ]

And accordingly all

k [The Christian Sacrifice: a trea-
tise shewing the necessity, end, and
manner of receiving the Holy Com-
munion, &c. By Symon Patrick, D.D.
(London, 1670.) Part ii. ed. 9. Lon-
don, 1690. |

' Offerens ei cum gratiarum actione
ex creatura ejus.—Iren. cont. Her.,
[lib. iv. c. 18. (34. ed. Grab.) § 4. Op.,
p- 251.]

the distinction between ‘ alms’ and ‘ oblations’ 275

that are there present, when they behold the priest thus pre-
paring the bread and wine for consecration to an higher
mystery, should secretly lift up their souls to God in hearty
thanksgiving, and offer Him the sacrifice of praise for these
and all other such benefits: desiring Him to accept of these
gifts, as a small token of their grateful sense that they hold
all they have of Him, as the great Lord of the world. And
so we are taught to do in that prayer which immediately
follows in our liturgy, for the whole state of Christ’s
Church, and wherein we humbly beseech Him to accept not
only our alms, but also our oblations. These are things
distinct: and the former (alms) signifying that which was
given for the relief of the poor, the latter (oblations) can
signify nothing else but (according to the style of the
ancient Church) this bread and wine presented to God, “

a thankful remembrance of our food both dry and liquid,”
(as Justin Martyr speaks™,) “which He, the Creator of the
world, hath made and given unto us.” But above all, we
must be sure to offer our devoutest acknowledgments for
that gift of gifts, the Son of God dying for us: without
which thanksgiving, to speak the truth, we do not do that
which Christ commanded, and so cannot hope for the bless-
ing He hath promised.

Dr. Heyiin, 1n nis ANtIpotTuM LINCOLNIENSE,
pp. 52, 53°.

“Now as the Doctor® was the first son of the Church of
England, so was Sedulius the first writer before the Refor-

TESTIMO-
NIES.

PATRICK.

HEYLIN.

mation that literally and in the first place did bend this text ae xili,

to the material altar.” Just so I promise you, and no other- e

wise. Or had Sedulius been the first, the exposition had
not been so modern but that it might lay claim to a fair
antiquity. Sedulius lived so near St. Austin that he might

seem to tread on his very heels, the one being placed by

m [S. Just. M. Dial. cum Tryph., 1637.)

§ 117. Op., p. 210, B,C; quoted above,
vol. ii. p. 95.

n [| Antidotum Lincolniense, or An
Answer to a book entitled, The Holy
Table, name and thing, by P. Heylin,
sect. ii, chap. 6. p. 52, 53, London,

° [This passage is the substance of
Bishop Williams’ words, p. 121, of The
Holy Table, name and thing, &e. ;
printed for the Diocese of Lincoln,
1637. ]

276 =Heylin; “We have an altar,” &c., Heb. xi. 10,

arrenpix. Bellarmine an. 420, the other an. 430, but ten years after ?.
vs And if the cardinal’s note be true‘, that he excerpted
all his notes on St. Paul’s Epistles from Origen, Ambrose,
Hierome, and Austin, for aught I know his exposition of
the place may be as old as any other whatsoever. But for
Sedulius (wheresoever he had it) thus he clears the place’ ;
Habemus nos fideles altare, preter altare Judeorum, unde
corpus et sanguinem Christi participamus, i. e. “the faithful
have an altar, yet not the Jewish altar neither, from whence
they do participate of Christ’s body and blood ;” that is plain
enough, and yet no plainer than St. Chrysostom, though
you have darkened him as much as possibly you can to
abuse the father’. Chrysostom expounds it (as you say)
of ta Tap’ jpiv, “of the things professed here amongst us ;”
for proof whereof you bring in Gicumenius with his vapatn-
pnoess, “the tenets, as it were, of Christian men.” So that
if you may be believed, the father and his second do ex-
pound the place of the doctrine, tenets, or profession of the
Church of Christ. First to begin with Chrysostom‘, ov«
ola Ta lovdaixd, bnct, Toadta Ta Tap Hiv, ws nde apXLE-
pet Oéuts eivar weréxerv avtT@v. The words you see put neu-
trally, and so translated in the Latin, Non enim qualia sunt
apud Judeos, talia etiam nostra sunt; that is, as I conceive
his meaning, “Our sacrifices, or our sacraments, are not such
as the Jewish were, our altar not as theirs, nor any of our
rites thereunto belonging.” My reason is because it follow-
eth in the father, os pdé dpysepel Oéuss eivar peréyerv
avtov, “so that it is not lawful, no not to the high-priest
himself, to partake thereof.” Of what I pray you? Not of
the things professed in the Christian Church? TI hope you
will not say but it was lawful to the priests to be partakers
of the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour. Why did the Apo-

P [See Bellarminus de Script. Eccle-
siast., ann. 420, 430. Op., tom. vii. pp.
126, 149. But see Cave, Hist. Lit.,
tom. i. p. 425, who distinguishes this
Sedulius from the poet of the same
name, and conjectures that he lived in
the eighth century. ]

4 Scripsit explanationes in omnes
epistolas Sancti Pauli, ex Origene, Am-
brosio, Hieronymo, et Augustino ex-
cerptas.—[ Bellarm., ibid., p. 149. ]

r [Sedulii Hibernensis in Epist.
Pauli Collectanea; in Epist. ad Hebr.,
¢c. xiii. 10. fol. 100, D. Basil, 1528; and
ap. Bibl. Patr. Max., tom. vi. p. 588,
G. Lugd. 1677. ]

s [ Williams,in the Holy Table, &c.]
pn. 122.

t (S, Chrys. in Epist. ad Hebr. Hom.
xxxili. § 2. Op., tom. xii. p. 304, A, B;
quoted above, vol. ii. p. 74, note g. |

understood of a material altar by the ancients. 277

stles preach unto the Jews, in case it were not lawful for t=sr1m0-
them to make profession of the faith? Therefore the father nevuv.
must needs mean the Christians’ sacrifices, (performed upon
the altar which the Apostle speaks of,) of which it was not
lawful for the high-priest (continuing as he was high-priest)
to be partaker. And this I take the rather to have been his
meaning, because Theophylact, who followed Chrysostom so
exactly" that he doth seem to have abridged him, doth thus
descant on it*: “’Ezrevd7) ef7rev, x.7.X. Having before said
(ver. 9) that no regard was to be had of meats, lest our own
ordinances (Ta 7uérepa) might be thought contemptible, as
things unobserved, he adds, that we have ordinances of our
own, (671 Kal ijuets Exomev TapaTypynowy,) not about meats,
(as were the Jews’,) dAN ert 7H Ovoracrnpliw, but such as
do concern the altar or the unbloody sacrifice of Christ’s
quickening body’. Of which, which sacrifice (ravrns yap) it
is not lawful for the priests to be partakers, as long as they
do service to the tabernacle, i.e. the legal signs and shadows.”
The like saith also @icumenius with his tapatnpycess, which
you have englished “tenets,” with the like felicity as you
did the ta wap’ piv in Chrysostom. For Gicumenius” say-
ing as Theophylact had done before, because the Apostle had
affirmed “that no regard was to be had of meats,” &c., he
adds, Mn yap cai jets ov Exomev Tapatynpycess, “and have
not we also our own ordinances or observations ?” To which
he answers with Theophylact, but a great deal plainer, Yes,
aX od Bpwpdtov, ddra ToD Ovatactnpiov Hudv, “not of
meats, but of our altar.”

ConsuLTaTio CassaNpRI, IN Opgeribus H. Groril, epitis
AMSTELEZDAMI, 1679. p. 604°.

Atque hac ratione hoc sacrificium, quatenus sacerdotis pia cassanvur.
cil

supplicatione peragitur, non modo eucharisticum, sed etiam

propitiatorium dict possit; non quidem ut efficiens propitia-

u Ita Chrysostomum secutus est, Y fro. TH avatuantw Ovoia Tod Cwo-
ut ejus abbreviator dici possit——Bel- moot odmatos. [Theophylact. ibid.] in
larm. de Scrip. Eccl. [anno 1071. Op., loc.
tom. vii. p. 341, C.] z {QGicumenius in Epist. ad Hebr.

x [Theophylact. Comm. in Epist.ad ce. xxi. Comment. in Nov. Test., tom. ii.
Hebr. cap. xiii. Op., tom. ii. p. 758,C. pp. 432, A; quoted, ibid., note k. |
759, A; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 75, 4 [ Hugonis Grotii Opera Theologica,
note i. | tom. ill. p. 604. Amst, et Lond. 1679. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VII.

Mal. i. 11.

278 In what sense the Eucharist is a Sacrifice ;

tionem, quod sacrificio crucis proprium est, sed ut eam jam
factam impetrans, quomodo oratio, cujus hoc sacrificium
species est, propitiatoria dici potest ..... Ad orationem
autem sacrificii intelligendam illud quoque observandum est,
quod antiquissima, et, ut videtur, apostolica consuetudine,
populus fides ad mensam dominicam panem et vinum solet
offerre in usum sacri ministerti, que ipse hostie et sacrificia
dict solent : omninoque hoc proprium Christiant populi sacri-
jicium esse putabatur, quod in pane et vino peragitur, locoque
omnium veterum sacrificiorum Christiano populo commendatur,
que cum postea in corpus et sanguinem Domini per mysticam
benedictionem transirent, et Deo Patri in mysterio offerrentur,
typus oblationis Melchisedechi in hoc perpetuo Christi sacer-
dotio, quo ex his creaturis, quas obtulerat Melchisedech, mini-
stri ecclesie sacrificium laudis et orationis offerunt, impleri
traditur, atque hoc esse illud sacrificium quod Malachias pre-
dixit, ‘in omni loco a gentibus offerendum sacrificium mun-
dum’ de quo Justinus, Ireneus, Cyprianus, Eusebius, Hiero-
nymus, Augustinus, et alii plerique omnes veteres scriptores
concorditer scripserunt, que huc adferre longum esset”.

Annotata Grotit ap Consu.t. Cassanp., p. 620.

Oblatio autem sive sacrificium hic est triplex. Primo enim offe-
runtur Deo species iste create a Deo ad vite hujus sustentationem.
Hoc est quod dicitur in Liturgiis, ra oa éx Tév cdv, “tua de
tuis®.” “ Offerimus ea que sunt ejus,” ait Ireneus dicto capite4.
Nec mirum id dici sacrificium, cum LXX interpretes etiam
illam leyalem ex simila oblationem, de qua agitur Levitict
cap. ii. O@vciav vocent, et Greci Pagani rpoOvpata, quibus
accedebat vini libatio. Alterum sacrificium est in eo ipso quod
Christus obtulit ; namque hoc ipsum et ecclesia Deo offert per
gratam commemorationem, Deumque orat ut suas preces ratas
faciat propter corpus et sanguinem Christi. Et recte Deo
offerimus quod Christus nostrum fecit. Hoc sensu Augustinus
de Spiritu et Litera hoc sacramentum vocat® “ipsum veris-

» [See above, vol. ii. p. 57, note r.]__—crificio, Domino Deo nostro agere gra-

© [See above, vol. ii. pp. 127, x; tiasadmonemur.—S. August. de Spiritu
130, k; 137, m; 143, e; 145, g.] et Litera, c. xi. § 18. Op., tom. x. col.

a [mrpocdépomey 5 abtG ra Ydia.— 94, E. Nonne quotidie nobis Christus
S. Iren. contra Heres., lib. iv. ec. 18. immolatur, &c.—Id. Enarr. in Ps. lxxy,

(al. 34. ed. Grabe.) § 5. Op., p. 251.] — § 15. ibid., tom. iv. col. 781, B.]

that an oblation of bread and wine may be a Sacrifice. 279

simum et singulare sacrificium:” et alibi ait eum non mentiri,

gui ait “ Christum ibi immolari :” quod et pvnunv mpocdépew
kat Ove‘, “memoriam offerre et immolare”’ dixit Eusebius,
lib. i. de Demonstratione Evangelica. Nicena autem synodus
“ situm dicit$ in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem
peccata mundi, incruente a sacerdotibus immolatum, et pretio-
sum ipsius corpus et sanguinem vere nos sumentes credere hec
esse resurrectionis nostre symbola.”

Grotit ANIMADVERSIONES IN ANIMADVERSIONES RIVETI,
p. 643.

Nam si illa legalis ex simila oblatio dicitur proprie @uvcia,
cur non et panis et vinum ex usu profano seposita, et assumta
in usum sacrum? Erant ibi ritus, sunt et hic ritus.

Grotii Votum pro PAcz, ibid., p. 660.

Nam de sacrifictt voce quid illis libet illam arctius restringere,
quam ferat aut origo vocis, aut usus ? Nihil respondet D. Rivetus
ad id quod dizi legalem de simila oblationem, id est, Any, dict
@vctav. Addam ego ex Gen. iv. 3. ex Greco: iveyxe Kalv aro
TOV KapTOV THs ys Qvciav TO Kupie, “ tulit Cain de fructibus
terre sacrificium Domino.” Ergo etiam de fructibus terre que
fit oblatio, Ovcia, id est, sacrificium recte dicitur. Sacrificant
ergo fideles cum fructum segetis et fructum vinee offerunt, ut
in usum illum sanctissimum consecrentur. Deinde ecclesia
sacrificium Christi quo solet ritu verbisque commemorans, in
eo guoque sacrificat et offert quod suum est, sibi a Christo
datum, id Deo ob oculos ponit, per id Deum obsecrat, estque
idem quod Christus obtulit sacrifictum ; idem “unum verum et
singulare sacrificium®” Augustino; prynwns Ovoia', “ sacrifi-
cium memoriale,” Eusebio ; voepa Ovaia, “ sacrificium intellec-
tuale,” alits. Post id semet offerunt fideles ad exemplum Christi,
bona sua, labores suos, etiam vitam, si non effectu cerie affectu,
quomodo Abrahamus filium obtulit sacrificans. Quid in his
novum, quid detortum, quid noxium ?

[urnuny Kal juiv mapadods, avti
Quotas TH Oe@ Sinvek@s mpocpepew.—
Euseb. de Dem. Evan., lib. i. p. 38, C;
quoted above, vol. i. pp. 10, 104, t. ]

& [Gelasii Hist. Cone. Nic.,c. 31.
Concilia, tom. ii. col. 241; quoted
above, vol. ii. p. 111, n.]J

h [Carnis Christi, quod est verum et

unicum sacrificium pro peccatis.—S.
Aug. contra duas Epist. Pelag., Op.,
tom. x. col. 458, B; and see above,
note e. |

i[rovtov Tov Oiparos Thy uvhuny emt
TpaméCay extedcty did cuuBdAwy.—Hu-
seb., de Dem. Evan., p. 89, A; quoted
above, vol. i. p. 104, x. ]

TESTIMO-
NILS.
GROTIUS.

———————

APPENDIX,
NO. VII.

1 ime 2s

280 The Eucharistic rites of apostolical origin.

Grotit Rivetrani1 Arotocerici Discussio, ibid., p. 699.

Qui sacrificit nomen misse sive eucharistico ritui hactenus
denegarunt, eo usi sunt argumento, quod in ea voce, cum proprie
ponitur, occisionem putarent includi. At aliter se res habet.
Ostenderat Grotius Grecam vocem, que sacrificit voce transfer-
tur in versionibus Grecis Novi Testamenti, ut et in scriptore ad
Hebreos xi. 4. dict de terre frugibus et de libo e simila.
Neque verbum, unde id nomen Grecum venit, primitivo sig-
nificatu est occidere, quanguam ex victimarum occisione eo
postea traductum est, sed suffire; ut notatum est Porphyrio:
quod et nomina multa ei verbo affinia in Greco sermone osten-
dunt. Bene dixvit Huntleus*, “ sacrificium nihil esse aliud, quam
oblationem rei sensibilis, Deo factam:” sacrificium autem hoc
esse representativum, seu commemorativum, in id institutum,
ut Det supremum dominium, et Christi passionem representet.
Cardinalis Perronius' “ sacrificium sacrifictt applicativum ap-
pellat.” Quid in hac re melius dict potuit ?

Ipip., p. 715. Quod vero dicit D. Rivetus, ad illam pre-
cationem in Liturgiis antiquis omnibus positam, ut Deus
“dona illa per suum Spiritum sanctificet, eaque faciat cor-
pus et sanguinem Christi,’ addi in Romana Missa, “nobis™;”
id rectum est, et cum sensu aliarum liturgiarum optime con-
gruit. De tali formula sic Augustinus, Epist. lix.", quest. v.,
adillud Pauli, “ Obsecro primum omnium fiert obsecrationes,” &c.
“ Bligo in his verbis hoc intelligere, quod omnis vel pene omnis
Srequentat ecclesia, ut precationes accipiamus dictas, quas faci-
mus in celebratione sacramentorum, antequam illud quod est
in Domini mensa incipiat benedici; orationes, cum benedici-
tur [et sanctificatur| et ad distribuendum comminuitur, quam

k [Sumitur vox sacrificii proprie, et
in speciali significatione pro externa
oblatione rei sensibilis Deo facta, que
non tam ex sua propria natura quam ex
Dei institutione vim et valorem habet.
—R. P. Jacobi Gordoni Huntlei Scoti,
e soc. Jesu, Controversiarum Epitome,
tom. iii, Controv. ix. De Sacrificio
Misse, § 7. p. 183. col. Agrip. 1620. ]

! [Qui de nous nie que le sacrifice
de la croix ne soit l’ unique sacrifice de
redemption? L’unité du sacrifice de re-
demption empesche t’ elle la subordina-
tion des sacrifices de religion instituez

pour celebrer, venerer et appliquer
celui de redemption, &c.—Traité du
Sainct Sacrement de |’ Eucharistie, par
Cardinal Du Perron. Livre ii. Auth.
17. c. i. pp. 316, 317. Par. 1622.

m [See above, vol. ii. p. 139, note s,
and p. 145, note g; and compare with
them the concluding words of the ex-
tracts pp. 130, note k; 133, s: 135, e;
137, 1. ]

n [(S. August. Epist. exlix. (al. lix.)
ad Paulinum cap. 2. § 16. Op., tom. 11.
col. 509, C ; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 219,
k.] ‘

Baxter on the offering in the Eucharist. 281

totam orationem pene omnis ecclesia dominica oratione con-
cludit.” Epistola vero exviu.°; “ Unde intelligi datur (quia mul-
tum erat ut in epistola totum illum agendi ordinem insinuaret,
quem universa per orbem servat ecclesia) ab ipso ordinatum esse,
quod nulla morum diversitate variatur. Sic et Basilius, libro
de Spiritu Sancio”, formam consecrandi, usitatam in eccle-
siis, ait esse traditionis apostolice. Et sane tantus ille apud
Grecos, Latinos, Arabas, Armenios, Syros, Aigyptios, Atthi-
opes, non in rebus tantum, sed et in verbis precipuis, consensus
non potest manasse nist a communi fonte..

Monrtuiy Preparations ror THE Hoty CoMMUNION, BY
R. B., (i.e. By Ricuarp BaxtTer,) WITH A PREFACE BY
Mr. Marruew Sytvester, second edition. London,
printed by Th. Bunce, for Th. Parkhurst, 1706, p. 9°.

In the consecration the Church doth first offer the crea-
tures of bread and wine, to be accepted by God to this sacred
use ; and God accepteth them, and blesseth them to this use,
which He signifies both by the words of His own institution,
and by the action of His ministers and their benediction ;
they being the agents of God to the people in this accepting
and blessing, as they are the agents of the people to God in
offering or dedicating the creatures to this use.

° [Id., Epist. liv. (al. exviii.) ad In- 55, A; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 93,

quisitiones Januarii, i. cap. 6. § 8. B,
C. The person spoken of is St. Paul,
and the passage referred to is his pro-
mise to ‘‘set things in order when he
comes;” 1 Cor. xi. 34. |

P [S. Basil. lib. de Spiritu Sancto,
c. xxvii. § 66. Op., tom. iii. pp. 64, E.

HICKES.

note Z. |

4 [See extracts from these liturgies
above, vol. ii. pp. 122, sqq., and the
argument from their agreement, ibid.,
p- 154. ]

* [The Editor has not been able to
see a copy of this work. ]

TESTIMO-
NIES.

GROTIUS.

BAXTER.

he
*
ray

ahh ‘ oo Be 1M Sh
ee iat . he 8
a *,
i i »

PY tera |

iad

AEE Niel Xx,

No.8.

MR. HUGHES'S

PRELIMINARY DISSERTATIONS

TO
ST. CHRYSOSTOM DE SACERDOTIO4,

WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, AS IT IS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THAT OF THE STATE, IS EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED, AND
ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ERASTIANS ANSWERED, ESPECIALLY
THOSE OF A LATE AUTHOR, WHO HAS PUBLISHED A BOOK, EN-
TITLED, THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

* [For the title of this work, see above, p. 266; and for an account of the author
see yol, i. p, 31, 32, note q. |

THE

CONTENTS

OF THE

FOLLOWING DISSERTATIONS.

DISSERTATION T.

The Christian Church is a true and proper, although it be a spiritual society,
distinet from all the societies of this world; and a society to which all men
are obliged to join themselves, under the greatest peril of their souls.

DISSERTATION II.
The Apostles constituted bishops for the perpetual government of the Christian

Church, with a peculiar power of ordination.

DISSERTATION III.

From the time of Constantine the Christian society has never incorporated with
the civil, but with respect to all its purely spiritual powers has ever remained
entire and distinct.

DISSERTATION IV.

The right of excommunication belongs to the Christian Church by a divine right.

DISSERTATION V.

The laity never received the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, without
having it first consecrated by priests.

DISSERTATION VI.

Of the power of Christian people in the elections of the clergy.

pack abil

Di
:
bs
¢
-
" oat “te r
‘
' at
‘
}
&
a
«
y

Per tNTRODUCTION.

TuERE came forth not long since, out of the mire of the
Socinians, a certain infamous book, with this pleasant title’,
“Concerning the Rights and Authority of the Christian
Church ;” when the only thing which that foul-mouthed
scribbler did therein propose to himself, was to the best of
his skill to prove, that the Church considered as a Church
could have no right or authority whatsoever belong to her.
He does most strenuously contend that all ecclesiastical
power, even that which is most spiritual, is to be derived
from the civil magistrate: that the election of all the minis-
ters of the Church, and the consecration of them when
elected, belongs to the people by a certain natural and
original right, which cannot be transferred to others: that
there is no mystery at all in the holy Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper; that it contains nothing more than a mere
and simple commemoration of Christ’s Passion ; and that
there is no need of consecration or of priesthood to the
due and effectual administration of it: that the right of
excommunication, as it is practised by our Church, nay as
it has been always administered by the universal Church of
Christ, from the reign of Constantine down to our times, is
absurd, monstrous, and tyrannical, and evidently repugnant
to the safety of the civil government; though at this very
day it does very well and conveniently agree with our English
monarchy, and has done so with all the Christian govern-
ments in the world for thirteen hundred years. And yet
this very book, which is so full of absurdities throughout,
and contains so many impieties, and even blasphemies, is in
the hands of all the libertines, being wonderfully caught up
by them all, and they are all strangely fond of it. Here the
Socinians exult and triumph, and openly and loudly brag,
that the cause of the clergy is entirely defeated by this one

« {The Rights of the Christian Church asserted. See vol. i. p. 49, and notes,
and the Prefatory Discourse, passim. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT.

INTROD.,

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII.

288 The refutations of the Rights of the Christian Church.

book : and that the most learned divines can give no sound
and solid answer to these irrefragable arguments. For my
part I solemnly profess, I am not able so much as to con-
jecture what there is in the clergy of the Church of Eng-
land which this impious herd of deists can upon any
account despise. For whether we consider their natural
endowments, or their learning, or the probity and integrity
of their manners, their worst enemies must confess, that in
all these respects there was never any body of men superior
to the divines of our Church. And this their enemies are
forced to own whether they will or no; and whatever they
prate to the contrary among their own party, their silent and
desponding thoughts acknowledge this truth. They have
seen their cause wonderfully baffled, and all their plausible
arguments, by which they attempted to impose upon the
unwary common people, solved, refuted, and entirely over-
thrown. They have seen the authority of the Church most
strenuously defended by men of the greatest learning ; and
defended in such a manner, that they must be obliged either
to allow this authority to the clergy, or to renounce the
Christian faith themselves, though this latter be not lke
to give them any great trouble. With how much strength
of reason, and with what weighty arguments, has the power
of excommunication been asserted to the clergy by Dr.
Hickes», a great man, eminent for almost all sorts of learn-
ing? And the whole controversy has been so well and
learnedly handled by Dr. Potter®, Regius Professor of Divi-
nity in Oxford, that nothing farther seems to be wanting to
put an end to this unhappy controversy. Nor must I omit
to mention Mr. Hoadly*, who has with very great perspi-
cuity and judgment answered all the arguments produced
from holy Scripture for the authority of the laity in things
sacred. But here I shall be asked, and that not without
reason: if it be as I say; if we have obtained so just and
complete a victory; what can I dare to promise after so
great men? The answer to this objection is very easy: that

b [In the Prefatory Discourse, first andthe Supremacy of Christian Princes
published in 1706. See vol.i. pp. 158, are vindicated and adjusted by John
sqq. | Potter, D.D. London, 1711. |

Oil Discourse of Church Govern- d [A Defence of Episcopal Ordina-
ment, wherein the Rights of the Church tion, by Benj. Hoadly. London, 1707. ]

Object of the present writer. 289

we cannot either write or preach often enough against such
pernicious and poisonous books. The venom has spread far

and wide; has infected men of all conditions; and under- —

mines and destroys the very foundations of the Christian
religion. It is incumbent upon us to take care, that pro-
vision be made of variety of different medicines against this
spreading infection, that out of the whole heap of them
every one may choose for himself that which his palate likes
best. As to my own particular, if these dissertations of
mine be able to bring back into the way but one of those
that have strayed from it; if so much as one Christian that
is staggering be hereby kept upon his feet and confirmed ;
I shall think my pains abundantly rewarded, Nor will it
perhaps be unprofitable for such as intend to study divinity,
(for whose sake I have published this edition of St. Chrysos-
tom de Sacerdotio,) to see as it were at one view all the
power and authority of the Church, for which we have been
so fiercely disputing against the outrageous madness of
heretics from the beginning of the Reformation, to be no
other than what the primitive Church did always both
acknowledge and assert. And indeed in this work, what-
ever after all it may prove, I thought regard was chiefly
to be had to such as intend to be divines: for I was
thoroughly persuaded, that if all who are initiated into holy
orders did first imbibe just notions concerning this most
important question, we should easily overcome our adver-
saries. For nothing has been a greater prejudice to the
Catholic Church, especially to that part of it which is re-
formed, than a gross ignorance of the dignity of the priest-
hood, which has occasioned the contempt of it even among
the clergy themselves. How far my pains in this under-
taking may be serviceable to this most noble purpose, I
leave others to judge; I am sure my intention was very
good. But besides this, our modern defender of the Chris-
tian Church is pleased to arraign St. Chrysostom, whose
authority was always in the greatest esteem, and to accuse
him of ignorance, pride, and ambition. What wonder is
it, say the laity, if St. Chrysostom, who was a priest him-
self, has made such glorious harangues concerning the au-
HICKES. P p

HUGHES
DISSERT.
INTROD,

APPENDIX,

NO, VIII,

290 Teaching of the primitive Church on the Priesthood.

thority of the priesthood? We need not give credit to him:
he is pleading his own cause; and being led or rather car-
ried headlong by an ungovernable ambition, he ignorantly
and unadvisedly says any thing that may seem to conduce
to the support of the ecclesiastical tyranny. The only thing,
say they, which this haughty priest proposed to himself, was
to gratify the growing ambition of the bishops; to bind the
people to a blind and tyrannical obedience, and put them
under a spiritual yoke; and to raise the clergy so much
above them, though taken out of the very dregs of the
people, as to have no superior but God only. If this be
the case, and our St. Chrysostom be the person they describe
him, I have indeed deserved little praise for publishing such

an author, and recommending him so earnestly to those who
purpose to study divinity. For which reason it appeared to

me not only useful, but also in a manner necessary to defend
the holy father from these senseless calumnies; and to shew
that nothing is contained in this treatise concerning the
dignity of the Christian priesthood, but what is most amply
confirmed by the judgment of the universal Church. Either
therefore St. Chrysostom must be wholly cleared from this
unjust accusation, or the whole primitive Church, of as great
extent as it was, will have been universally involved in the
same guilt.

The venerable father seems to prove the dignity of the Chris-
tian priesthood chiefly by those two extraordinary privileges
with which it is adorned, viz., the consecration of the Eucha-
rist, and the power of absolving penitents. Therefore I shall
undertake to prove, that the Christian clergy have these two
powers, and that the Church of Christ has always laid claim
to them, and exercised them as entrusted with her by Jesus
Christ. And since these two powers do both suppose and
demonstrate the Christian Church to be a true and proper
society, and that if we grant the Church of Christ to be a
true society, it thence evidently follows, that a right of ex-
communication belongs to her; I was persuaded it would
not be foreign to my purpose to take the matter a little
higher, and premise something concerning the nature, and
privileges, and authority of this spiritual society. And after

Points to be established in these Dissertations. 29]

I had considered the thing once and again, the following vanes

method seemed the easiest, and best adapted to my purpose,
viz., that I should undertake to prove,

I. That the Christian Church is a true and _ proper
(although it be a spiritual) society, distinct from all
the societies of this world, and a society to which all
men are obliged to join themselves, under the greatest
peril of their souls.

II. That the government of this society was by the
Apostles committed unto bishops, with a peculiar power
of ordaining the ministers of the Church.

Ill. That this Christian society has by no means been
incorporated with the civil from the time of Constan-
tine, but has always remained entire, and with regard
to all its spiritual powers wholly separate.

IV. That the right of excommunication belongs to the
Christian Church by divine right.

V. That the power of consecrating the Eucharist apper-
tains only to priests duly ordained by bishops.

VI. That the Christian people had no proper votes in the
elections of the clergy.

If I can once prove all this, which I hope to do most
abundantly, whatever has been senselessly and rashly thrown
out against the Christian clergy by Erastus, Selden, Hobbes,
and this late scribbler, who has with great diligence stolen
from their writings, must necessarily fall to the ground,
and come to nothing.

I will therefore now, by the assistance of God, (for whose
honour and glory I have undertaken this work, such as it is,)
begin with the nature of the Christian society.

DISSERT,

INTROD.

"APPENDIX,
No. VII.

DISSERTATION I.

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS A TRUE AND PROPER (ALTHOUGH IT BFE A SPIRI-
TUAL) SOCIETY, AND DISTINCT FROM ALL THE SOCIETIES OF THIS WORLD;
AND A SOCIETY TO WHICH ALL MEN ARE OBLIGED TO JOIN THEMSELVES
UNDER THE GREATEST PERIL OF THEIR SOULS.

Tus is my first proposition. Now in order to prove this
proposition, it will be of use to consider those various names
and appellations by which the Church of Christ is frequently
denoted in holy Scripture; for from these it will easily ap-
pear to any modest man that Jesus Christ has founded a
proper and a public society.

I. The Church then is called in the holy Scriptures “the

‘kingdom of heaven*,” “the kingdom of God?,” “the king-
dom of the Son‘’,’ “the house of God‘,’ “the temple of
God¢,” “the commonwealth (or government) of Israel‘,” by
which is properly signified the administration of some king-
dom. Jesus Christ is called “the head of the Church§,”
and the Church is styled ‘the body of Christ",’ and “a
spiritual house'.”

Now such expressions as these do at least imply thus
much, that Jesus Christ has constituted a certain regular
society, whereof all are obliged to be members who will
obtain that salvation which Christ has purchased for us.
For they who are not members of this body, of this society,
cannot have Christ for their head; and they who are not
joined to the head cannot partake of any influx derived
from it.

To this may be added that in St. Matthew‘, “the king-
dom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed
in his field,” compared with what follows', “so shall it be in
the end of this world.’ And the Church is expressly called
“the house of God;” “that thou mayest know how thou

* Bacircla Tay ovpavav: Matt. x. 7. b 7d cGua Tov Xpiotov : ibid. v. 23.
» Baotrcla rod Oeod: Acts xxviii. ult. 1 olkos mvevmatixds:: 1 Pet. ii. 5.
BactAcia Tod viod: Col. i. 13. kK Guo1d0n BaciAela Tay ovpavay av-
. em roy olkoy adtod: Heb. iii. 6. Opémw omelpovtt KaAdY oTEepua eV TE GY-
vaos Beod: 1 Cor. iii. 16. pe avrov: Matt. xiii. 24.
moAitela Tod “Lopand: Eph. ii. 12. 1 oftws %orar ev TH ouvTedela TOD

& THs exkAnoias Kepadyn: Eph. i. 22. aig@ytos tovrou: ibid. y. 40.

The terms by which the Church is denoted in Scripture. 293

oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is uvenrs |
the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the ?“**"*
truth™.” All Christians are said to be “ fellow-citizens with

the saints, and of the household of God; to be built upon

the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief corner-stone ; in whom all the build-

ing, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in

the Lord; in whom you also are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit"? If therefore all the
disciples of Jesus Christ, wheresoever dispersed, are fellow-
citizens, built together upon one foundation, and constitute

one building, one temple, one habitation, it evidently follows

that all the Christians in the world are members of one

society, which is separated from all other societies by some

certain privileges.

“For as the body is one,” says the Apostle°, “and has
many members, and all the members of that one body, being
many, are one body, so also is Christ, for by one spirit we
are all baptized into one body. Now ye are the body of
Christ, and members in particular; and God hath set some
in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly
teachers,” &c. All Christians are members of one body,
and are united to that body by the Sacrament of Baptism.
The Christian Church is a body consisting of various and
different members ordained and appointed for divers uses ;
that is, the Christian Church is one society, furnished and
adorned with several orders, and offices, and ministries of
men. Some are to be taught, and some teach in this
Church; some are subjects, and some, on the contrary, are
rulers and governors, appointed by Jesus Christ Himself.
They must be stupid and senseless whom all this does not

mG, esa e. el5ns mas det ev olxw Ocod ° Kadamep yap To oGua ey eo, kab

divarrpécpes au, % Aris early exkAnoia Geov
GGvros, oTvAos Kal edpaiwua THs GAn-
@elas: 1 Tim. iii. 15.

n guumoXtrat TaY Gyiwy Kal oiKetoL
TOD Oeov, emoikodounbevtes em) TH Depe-
Alw Tay amoarénwy kal mpopntav, dvTos
aKporywviaiou avtov “Inoov Xpiorov, ev @
mao n oiKodouiy ouvappLoroy oupevn ager
els vaby Gyioyv ev Kupi, ev @ wal duets
ouvotkodometabe eis KaTOLKnTHploy ToD
Ge00 ev mvevpate: Eph. ii, 19—22.

MEAN EXEL TOAAG, TavTa Be Ta MEAN TOD
oHuaTos TOU Evds, TOAAG bvTa, ev eoTL
cGpya’ ottw Kal 6 Xpiotds’ Kal yap év
évl mvevpart nuets mavres cis Ey cama,
éBamrioOnuer ; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. dpets
dé eoTe cOma Xpiorod, Ka) MEAN ek bé-
pous* kal obs ev €BeTo 6 Oeds ev TH ek-
KAnola, mparov amoordAous, debrepov
mpopntas, Tpitov bidacKdAous, K.T.A. ;
ver. 27, 28.

294 That the Church is a distinct society, argued from

arrenpix. convince that the Christian Church is a society to which all

—

NO. VIIL.

men are obliged to join themselves; and if it be granted
that the Church of Christ is a society to which all Christians,
as such, are obliged to join themselves, it will plainly follow
from hence that this society is different and distinct from all
other societies whatsoever.

II. Another argument of this, and one which to me al-
ways seemed of great force, may be drawn from those pas-
sages of Scripture in which all Christians are commanded to
be baptized, and to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper, and where ministers and pastors, whose duty and
office it is to administer the Sacraments, are enjoined to
offer up prayers to God for the people, and to inflict eccle-
siastical censures, and where obedience and submission to
those censures is required as a necessary duty of all men.

“ For by one spirit,’ says the Apostle?, “ are we all baptized
into one body.” “For we being many are one bread and
one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Being
initiated by baptism, we were made members of the Chris-
tian Church; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper we grow
and are confirmed. Nay, by the Sacrament of Baptism we
acquire a right to participate of the body and blood of Christ
in the Eucharist. And that this right of baptism is to con-
tinue to the end of the world does most evidently appear
from that passage in St. John‘, “ Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God.” Seeing, therefore, that all Christians ought to be
baptized, and afterwards to commemorate in the Eucharist
the Passion of our blessed Saviour, it hence follows that we
are all obliged to unite together into a society, to the end
that these Sacraments may be the better and the more safely
administered. For supposing the Christian Church to be
no society there will be an end of the Sacraments. On this
supposition no one will be obliged to be baptized, nor to
partake of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Nay, if

‘you take away the Christian society nothing will be more

useless and insignificant than the Sacrament of Baptism ; for

P Kal yap ev év) mvedmari queis mav- eopmev' of yap mayTes ek TOU Evds uiptou
Tes eis Cv cua eBarticOnuev: 1 Cor. peréxouev: ch. x. 17
xii. 13. O71 eis Uptos, Ev T@ue of troAAol 4 John iii. 5.

the obligation of the Sacraments, and of united prayer; 295

by this Sacrament, as by a holy rite or ceremony, we are
joined and associated to the Christian, as the Jews were of
old to the Jewish Church by the right of circumcision. But if
the Christian Church is not a society unto which we are ob-
liged to join ourselves, such as the Jewish Church was, to
what use or purpose, I would fain know, can this ceremony
of initiating serve? And the same is also proved from
the sacrament of the Eucharist. For seeing that we are
partakers of one consecrated bread, we therefore constitute
one body; one mystical body, as we are united to God by
faith; one political body, as we are most closely incorpo-
rated with one another by the participation of the same holy
mysteries.

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,”
says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews", “as the
manner of some is, but exhorting one another.” And the
Apostle to Timothy’, ‘I exhort, therefore, that first of all
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks
be made for all men,” &c. From these passages it is I
think sufficiently manifest that the profession of the Chris-
tian faith is lame and imperfect, unless the public worship
be joined with it. We are therefore all under the high-
est obligation to assemble together, in order to worship
Jesus Christ according to His institution, and to receive the
Sacraments appointed by Him. In this one privilege the
Christian society consists: Jesus Christ Himself entrusted
this authority with His Church, that in all countries they
should meet together in public assemblies for the sake of
worship and discipline. Hence also we may conclude, that
whatsoever may conduce to the due and entire conservation
of these public assemblies was also granted by our Saviour
to the Church. From this most plain principle may be
evidently deduced a right, both of admitting such as are
worthy to baptism, and of rejecting the unworthy by ex-
communication. ‘Tertullian himself describes the Christian
Church thus‘: “We are a body from the agreement of our

¥ ph eykatadelmovtes Thy emivva- Oar dehoers, tpocevyds. evredters, €d-
yoy eavtay, Kodws os Tislv, GAAA = Xapiotias wep wdvTwv avOpdTrw, K.-T. :
mapararobvTes EauTous, «.7.A.: Heb. x. 1 Tim. ii. 1.
25. © Corpus sumus de conscientia reli-
* mapakare ody mp@rov mdvTwy mo.et- —gionis, et discipline unitate, et spei foe-

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIL.

296 from the institution of the Christian Ministry,

religion, and the unity of our discipline, and the covenant
of hope. We assemble together in a congregation, that we
may as it were with joint forces offer up our request unto
God,” &e. But of this I shall treat more at large elsewhere.

In St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy and Titus we frequently
read, that deacons, priests, and bishops, were made to esta-
blish, and teach, and govern the Church of God. Timothy
and Titus are instructed by the Apostle how they should also
choose others into the ministry, who might perform the same
duties. Now to what purpose, I beseech you, is all this, if
the Church of Christ be not a society? To these bishops
appointed by the Apostles it belongs to correct, not only the
laity, but the clergy, and to deprive such as are incorrigible,
as appears from that of the Apostle to Timothy", “ Against
an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three
witnesses.”

It is their duty not only “to preach the word, and to be
instant in season and out of season,” but also even “to re-
prove, and to rebuke*.” To them it appertaims to remove
heretics out of the Church; “A man that is an heretic,”

says St. Paul to Titus’, “after the first and second admoni-

tion reject.” If all this do not prove a society, it will be very
difficult to comprehend what a society is. Add to this, that
all Christians are commanded to yield obedience to bishops
and priests that are duly ordained in those words of the
Apostle2, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and sub-
mit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that
must give account,” &c. See the learned Grotius upon the
place@.

Ill. This Christian society is likewise abundantly demon-
strated from all those passages of holy Scripture, in which
schism and schismatics are condemned, as that of St. Paul®,
“‘ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divi-

4 [Grotii Annot. in Epist. ad Hebr.

dere. Coimus in coetum et congrega-
xiii. 17. Op. Theol., tom. iii, p. 1068.

tionem, ut ad Deum quasi manu facta

precationibus ambiamus orantes, &c.—
—(Tertull. Apol., ce. 28. (al. 39.) Op.,
p: 31, A.]

"1 Tim. v. 19.

= Ae ha ee

y Tit. iii. 10.

zeEeb> xii. 17.

et ap. Crit. Sacr., tom. vii. col. 1187.
See above, vol. ii. p. 281, note p. ]

> TapaKkar® d5& duds, adeApol, cKoTetv
Tovs Tas StxooTaclas, kal TA TKaVdaAG
mapa thy didaxhv fv ducts euddere,
mowovras’ Kal exKAlare amr avTay:
Rom. xvi. 17.

and from the sinfulness and nature of schism. 297

sions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned, and avoid them ;” and that where schism is reck-
oned amongst the most grievous sins, and such as shut men
out from the kingdom of heaven‘, “idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, here-
sies ;” and where schismatics are called “ grievous (or raven-
ous) wolves*,” carnal, &c. “ For whereas there is among you
envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk
asmen? For while one saith, Iam of Paul, another I am
of Apollos, are ye not carnal®?”’? From these passages we
most expressly gather, that every schism or separation from
the Church made without a just cause, is a sin, and such a
sin as excludes from the kingdom of heaven. Now what is
the meaning of all this? What is the reason that schism is
so grievous, and so very dangerous a sm? From this open
condemnation of schism, it manifestly appears according to
the best of my understanding, that all Christians are tied by
the strictest obligation to hold communion with each other
in the holy offices. It appears also that Jesus Christ hath
instituted a certain society, to which all men are obliged to
join themselves.

But here it may not be amiss to say something concerning
the nature of schism; for there are not wanting those who
believe, that that notion of schism which obtained in the
third and fourth century is by no means the same with that
which we are taught in the sacred oracles.

For the better understanding of the nature of schism,
these two things seem to be necessary. Ist. That we should
be rightly informed what was the opinion of the Jews in this
matter. 2ndly. That we should also know, what conceptions
concerning schism the apostolic fathers had, who without
doubt received their notions from the very Apostles them-
selves. And it is hardly possible to believe, that those most
holy men could in a matter of so great moment either be
deceived, or vary the least tittle from the Apostles’ own

© eidwAoAarpela, dapuaxela, exOpal, d1xooT acta, ovx) capkixol éore, kai Kat”
Zpers, CijAos, Ovuol, épiletat, Sixooracia, evOpwmov mepimareire; bray ydp A€yn

aipéoes: Gal. v. 20. tis, yc mev eit TlavAov’ erepos be, eyw
4 Adio. Bapets, lupirapaces; Actsxx. ’“AmoAAw odx) capkixoi éore: 1 Cor. ili.
29. 3, 4.

HUGHES
DISSERT, I.

298 The opinion of the Jews respecting the nature

opinion. By this method in my judgment we shall more
easily arrive at the true nature of schism, than by wresting
several passages of the holy Scriptures, in which we cannot
expect to meet with a perfect description of schism, when
there was no such thing as a formal schism had yet hap-
pened. It does not by any means appear, that in the times
of the Apostles heretics had set up altars against altars, in
which alone the very nature and essence of schism is placed
both by St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian‘, whose opinions con-
cerning schism have been very closely followed by the Catho-
lic Church, as most clearly appears from St. Jerome and
St. Augustine. This being the case, I was of opinion that
there could not be a more commodious way taken to clear
this difficulty, than by accurately considering what were the
principles of the Jews with respect to this question, and
what the practice and custom of the primitive Church.

I. First then, let us see what was the opinion of the Jews
in this matter. It is most evident from Josephus®, that
Manasses, brother to Jaddeus the high-priest, inveigled by
the fair promises of Sanballat, made a separation from the
temple of Jerusalem, and erected a new temple, and insti-
tuted a new order of priests in mount Gerizim. Here we
see altar properly set up against altar, and priest against
priest. This the Jews called a schism. From this fountain
was derived that fierce and cruel enmity between those two
people, which continued from this time down to that of our
blessed Saviour. The Jews took it for granted, that the
worshippers at the temple of Gerizim, in that they had de-
parted from the centre of unity and the succession of the
priests, were no longer Jews, no longer a part of God’s
peculium, had nothing to do with the covenant of God, no
claim to His promises. ‘They accounted them all, though
born of Jewish parents, to be ddAdduAo, “ strangers,” and
indeed mere heathens. And that this was the cause of that
deadly hatred to them, is evident from hence, that there
cannot be alleged any other probable cause of it. They were
not Gentiles, but they were proselytes of justice; they em-
braced all the Mosaical or ceremonial law, and had received

f [See below, pp. 300, sqq. ]
& [Joseph. Ant. Jud, lib. xi. c. 8. p. 501, sqq. ed. Hudson. ]

and consequences of schism, as confirmed by our Lord. 299

circumcision, the seal of the covenant. Nor were they
idolaters; there is no mention of this accusation against
them, the Jews never upbraided them with it. This appears
farther from the defence of Andronicus), “beginning from
the law to prove his sanctity and religion, and shewing by
the continued successions of the high-priests, the propagation
of the priesthood down to his own times.”

lst. He argues from the unity of the priesthood prescribed
by the law; and 2ndly, from the succession, which Manasses
had violated.

All these things are confirmed by the Samaritan woman’s
question; “ How is it',” says she to our Saviour, who had asked
her to give Him drink, “ that thou being a Jew, askest drink
of me, which am a woman of Samaria: for the Jews have no
dealings with the Samaritans,” &c.

From this story I would observe these things :

1. That between those two temples opposite to each other,
there was a true schism.

2. That the schism did therein consist, that they had vio-
lated the principle of unity, and the succession of the priests.

3. That such is the nature of schism, according to the

principles of the Jews, that it alienated men from the cove-

nant of God.

The Samaritan woman, perceiving that Jesus Christ was a
prophet, immediately asks Him concerning that famous con-
troversy, which was at that time debated with very great
eagerness of mind: “Our fathers,” says she, “ worshipped in
this mountain, and ye (Jews) say, that in Jerusalem (alone)
is the place (or temple) where men ought to worship *.”

Our Saviour apparently determines the controversy against
the Samaritans ; “ Ye worship,” says He, “ ye know not what:
we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews!”
Elsewhere™ He calls the Samaritans a\Xoyevets, “strangers,”
that is, separated from the Jewish peculium. And He joins
the Samaritans with the Gentiles", and makes them both
subject to the like condition.

h .,.. €k Tov véuou, Kal TeV diado- i John iv. 9.
XGY THY ApXLEpewY, WS EKaTTOS Tapa Ta- k Ibid. 20.
Tpos Thy Tish exdeEduevos hpke TOU vaod. ! Thid. 22.
—Joseph. Ant. Jud., lib. xiii. ce. 3. (al. ™ Luke xvii. 18.

6.) [p. 562. ed. Hudson. ] n Matt. x. 5.

HUGHES
DISSERT I.

APPENDIX,
NO. VII.

300 The view of schism expressed by St. Ignatius

You see what were the principles of the Jews concerning
this matter, and how those principles were confirmed by our
Saviour Himself.

II. We are next to consider how the holy fathers have
argued against schism from these principles.

1. St. Ignatius maintains that every religious assembly
without a bishop (who answers to the Jewish high-priest) is
unlawful and schismatical. Let us hasten therefore,” says
he°, “not to resist the bishop, that we may be subject to
God.” That we may obey the bishop and college of presby-
ters with an undistracted mind, breaking one bread, which
is the antidote against mortality?,” &c.

He describes the unity of the Church by one temple and
one altar. “All therefore,” says he4, “run together to the
temple of God, as to one altar,” &c. Who does not see that
all this is deduced from the principles of the Jews?

He ascribes only to the external communion of the bishops
all those spiritual sacrifices which flow from Jesus Christ.
“Do not mistake,” says he, “my brethren; if any man
follows one that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the
kingdom of God; if any one shall be of another opinion, he
contradicts Christ’s passion’.”

«Study therefore,” says he, “to join together in one Eucha-
rist or thanksgiving’.” The Eucharist answers to the Mosaical
sacrifices. And he produces these reasons for their so doing,
“For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in
the unity of His blood; one altar, as one bishop,” &c. There-
fore the unity of the altar and the priesthood proves that we
ought to join in one Eucharist in the unity of the Church.
And thus also the Jews disputed against the Samaritans.

‘But where there is division,” says he‘, “and wrath, there

° grovddowuey [ody] mh avTitdoce- KANpOvoUAT EL” el Tis ev adAdoT pia youn
cba TG emokdm@, iva ducv Ocg tmo- mTepimare?, ovTOS TS TAPE Ov ovyKaTarl-

tacoduevot.—S. Ignat. Ep. ad Eph., @era.—Id. Ep. ad Phil., c. 3. |p. 31.]
C. Os [ap. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 13. ] 5 omovddrere ovv mg edXapiorig

P eis Td bmakovew Tuas T@ erick,
kal T@ mpecBuTeplw amepiomacT@ Bia
vola, Eva &pTov KA@YTES, bs eoTL Papua-
kov a@avacias, K.T.A.—Id. ibid., c, 20.
{p. 16.]

4 mdvres oty ws eis [Eva] vady cuv-
TpexEeTE Jeod, ws em) ey OvoiacThpioy,
k.T.A.—Id. Ep. ad Magn., c. 7. [p. 19.]

¥ un mwAavacbe, adeApoi pou et tis
oxifovTt akoAovbe?, BaciAciay Beovd ov

XPhio ba fala yap capt Tov keuplov Tay
*Inoov | Xpirrov, kal ev ToT ApLoy eis €vw-
ow Tov aiwaros auTov, ev Ovo.acThpioy,
as eis énickoTos, K.T.A.—Id., ibid., c. 4.

t of be Bepio nds eo kal opyn, beds
ov Kar ounces” Tac ov meTavoodow apes
6 Kpwos, éav MeTavonowaw eis EVOTHTA
Geod, Kat ovvedpiov Tod émtoxdrov.—ld.,
ibid., c. 8. | p. 32. ]

and St. Cyprian, the same as that of the Jews. 30]

God dwelleth not; therefore God pardons all that repent, if
they return to the unity of God, and to the assembly of the
bishop.” So that even repentance itself, out of the bishop’s
communion, is not available to the forgiveness of sins. This
is what we find in St. Ignatius.

2. And St. Cyprian says almost the same. ‘ Whosoever
being separated from the Church,” says he, “is joined to an
adulteress,” he means to any schismatical congregation, ‘ he
_ is separated from the promises of the Church; nor does he
attain the rewards of Christ, who forsakes Christ’s Church.
He is a stranger, a profane person, [a foreigner, | an enemy.
He can no longer have God for his father, who has not the
Church for his mother. If any one could escape that was
out of Noah’s ark, then he that shall be out of the Church
will also escape”.”

He says that the sacrifices, that is the Eucharist, cannot
be celebrated by those who separate from the Church.
“What sacrifices,” says he, “do these rivals of the priests
think they celebrate? Do they imagine Christ is with them
when assembled, who are assembled out of the Church of
Christ? Though such persons should be put to death for
confessing the name of Christ, yet that stain” (he means their
schism) “ would not be washed off even with their blood. He
cannot possibly be a martyr, who is not in the Church*.” It
is plain that he has regard to the temple. No sacrifices
offered out of the temple were accepted.

“He who divides the Church,” saith the same father,
“and dissipates the unity, profanes the Sacramenty.” And
again’, “ Being an enemy of the altar, and a rebel against

" Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus colliguntur? tales etiamsi in confes-

adultere jungitur, a promissis eccle-
siz separatur. Nec perveniet (al. per-
venit) ad Christi premia, qui relin-
quit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est,
profanus [a@AAoyevys] est, hostis est.
Habere jam non potest Deum patrem,
qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si
potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra ar-
cam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam
foris fuerit evadit (al. evadet.)—S.
Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. [Op., p. 195. ]

x Que sacrificia celebrare se cre-
dunt emuli sacerdotun? an secum
esse Christum cum collecti fuerint
opinantur, qui extra ecclesiam Christi

sione nominis fuerint interfecti, ma-
cula ista nee sanguine abluitur.., Esse
martyr non potest, qui in ecclesia non
est.—Ibid., [p. 198. ]

Y Qui... ecclesiam scindit,... cari-
tatem dissipat, sacramentum profanat.
—Ibid., [p. 199. Hughes read unita-
tem, for which there is no authority. |

” Hostis altaris,adversus sacrificium
Christi rebellis, contemptis episcopis,
et Dei sacerdotibus derelictis, consti-
tuere audet aliud altare, precem alte-
ram illicitis vocibus facere, dominice
hostie veritatem per falsa sacrificia pro-

fanare.—Ibid., [p. 200. }

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

302 The teaching of the Primitive Fathers, Apostolical.

arrenvix. the sacrifice of Christ, despising the bishops, and forsaking
<0: Ni* the priests of God, he dares erect another altar, offer up
another prayer with unhallowed lips, and by false sacrifices
profane the truth of our Lord’s own oblation of Himself.”
Now this is the very phrase and manner of speaking among
the Jews, which St. Cyprian uses frequently; and that St.
Tgnatius made use of the same was just now shewn. Therefore
it cannot be denied, that the holy fathers, even such as were
contemporary with the Apostles themselves, argued against
schism from the principles of the Jews, namely, that they
used arguments drawn from the unity of the altar and of the
priesthood. From whence it most evidently follows, that the
nature of schism consists in a separation from the unity of
the altar. And that these are the very same notions which
our Saviour and His Apostles taught, is manifest from these
two considerations. First, That it is certain that in the times
of St. Ignatius, and even in those of St. Cyprian, manifesta-
tions of the Spirit and extraordinary gifts were very familiar.
How therefore can it be conceived, that persons of the
greatest prudence, and those often divinely mspired, could
be mistaken concerning the nature of schism? Secondly,
That they must either have borrowed these notions of schism
from the very Apostles themselves, or despising and reject-
ing with scorn the opinions of the Apostles concerning this
matter, they must have formed to themselves new and indeed
monstrous notions of schism: that is to say, the first bishops
from the Apostles, who succeeded the Apostles in their sees,
and had frequently lived in familiarity with them, men of
extraordinary piety and of the greatest integrity, who had
nothing more at heart than not only to imitate but reverence
the Apostles; these men, I say, through too much nicety, left
the way that had been trodden by the Apostles, and found
out new paths for themselves. They must be far more
credulous than I who can believe this. Hence we collect,
that the nature of schism, viz., of that which the Apostles
condemned, consists in a separation from the principle of
unity; and therefore from these principles we must explain
all those passages of holy Scripture which speak of schism or
schismatics. Schism then is a dividing or cutting off, namely,
as often as the consociation or society of the Church is

Consequences which follow from the nature of schism. 303

broken, when any one does so divide himself from that society
of the true Catholic Church, as that he will be no more a
member or part of it. That therefore is truly and properly
the schism, concerning which I am now treating, when the
separation above mentioned is made from the true Catholic
Church, with a breach of communion in things divine.

From the very nature of schism these things following are
easily deduced.

]. That the Christian Church is a true and proper society.

2. That all persons are obliged to join themselves to this
society.

3. Since peace and unity with the universal Church of
Christ can no otherwise be maintained than by adhering to
some particular Church, that therefore all Christians are
under an obligation to join themselves to some particular
Church.

4. That all separation from any particular Church, which
requires no unlawful terms of communion, is schismatical,
and excludes from the kingdom of heaven.

5. That private Christians have not a power of joining
themselves to any sect or faction at their own discretion, but
are obliged, on peril of eternal damnation, to adhere to that
part of the Catholic Church, of which they are members.

These arguments drawn from the holy Scriptures do suffi-
ciently prove that the Church is a true society. It were
very easy both to urge these farther, and to add others, as
well to confirm as to illustrate my proposition; but I deter-
mined only to point out those arguments that may be
brought from Scripture, since what I chiefly proposed in this
work was to shew the opinion of the primitive Church in
these controversies; for I am thoroughly persuaded that
that doctrine which has obtained at all times, in all places,
and among all Christians, is true and consentaneous to the
Word of God, and in one word is Catholic. In vain, there-
fore, do our adversaries attack us with certain little subtle-
ties sprung out of their own brains; in vain do they mise-
rably wrest the holy Scriptures, to charge us with a crowd
of passages from thence. For I confidently affirm, that all
those interpretations of the Scriptures which are repugnant
to the universal practice of the primitive Church, however

HUGHES

DISSERT., I.

APPENDIX,

NO, VIII.

1 “having
proved by
trial.” |

304 The Primitive Fathers on the nature of the Church.

subtle and plausible they may seem, are very false, and
ought to be despised.

Let us see, therefore, what was the opinion of the primi-
tive fathers concerning the nature of Christ’s Church.

We will begin with St. Clement, a man truly apostolic,
and a witness so far above all suspicion, that it were the high-
est degree of impudence not to give credit to him. This
venerable father, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, says:
“They, therefore,” (he speaks of the Apostles,) “preaching
the word through cities and countries, and by the Spirit
approving ! of their first-fruits, constituted them bishops and
deacons of those who should hereafter believe.” And a little
after he adds: “ And our Apostles knew by Jesus Christ our
Lord that a contention would arise concerning the name of
episcopacy ; and for this reason, being endowed with a per-
fect foreknowledge, they constituted the ministers above men-
tioned, and gave that distribution of holy offices in the mean
time, that as they should die other approved men might suc-
ceed in the ministry °.”

In this passage St. Clement does most expressly teach us
that Jesus Christ had instituted a society (which he calls
“Christ’s flock¢”) that was to continue to the end of the
world: for this society does by no means expire with the
Apostles, but is equally extended to all the ages of the world.
The Apostles administer the Church by an authority commit-
ted to them by Christ Himself, and name others for their
successors, to whom they commit the same ordinary powers,
that they also, after the death of the Apostles, might happily
and prosperously govern the Church. Nor is it to be
doubted but that our Saviour will be with the successors
of the Apostles unto the end of the world, to ratify their
acts in heaven. But they who interpret “the end of the
world*” concerning the age of the Apostles, do only endeavour

oo.

KaTa xa@pas ody Kal TéAEis KnpC-
Govres, (amdaroAol) Kabloravoy Tas
anapxas avTay, Soxyudoavtes TO mvEd-
Hatt, eis emiokdmous Kal diakdvous Tov
MeAAdvTwy moreve.—[S. Clem. R.
Ep. i. ad Cor. c. 42. Patr. Apost.,
tom. i. p. 171. ]

* of amdaroAo Nudy &yvwoay bid TOD
kuplov judy “Inood Xpiotod, bri eps
€ora emt Tod dvduaros THs emioKomys

Sia Tabryy oby Thy airiay mpdyvwouyr ei-
Anpotes TeAElay, KaTeTTNTAY TOUS TpoEt~
pnuevous, kal werakd emwouhy SedbKact,
dmws €ay Kouunb@or, Siadeiwytar Erepa
dedokipmacuevor &vSpes Thy AetToupyiav
avtov.— Id., ibid., ce. 44. p. 173.]

“ rolumov Tod Xpiorov.—| Id., ibid.]

20.

The visible Church of Divine institution. 305

to impose upon us, and are the veriest triflers imaginable.
But from this passage of St.Clement I would observe far-
ther: 1. That the Christian society does not owe its original
to any private agreement occasioned by the necessity of the
times, but was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. 2. That
it is by no means lawful for the people to appoint their own
ministers, and institute their own priests; but that our Sa-
viour prescribed a certain rule, according to which all these
things should be performed; and by this means He most
admirably consulted both the peace and unity of the Church.
For the most holy Jesus foresaw that great ‘“ contentions
would arise concerning the name of episcopacy,” and there-
fore applied this remedy against them. He appointed that
_the Apostles whom He had sent should also send others, and
confirm them by a certain solemn ordination. He appointed
also that they whom the Apostles should ordain should have
a power granted to them of ordaining others to succeed
them. Whither, I beseech you, went the right of the peo-
ple? What is become of their natural power? Pray why
does our adversary make such a stir about the original right
of the people? What does he mean? Had not God Him-
self a power of constituting an order of clergy as He should
think fit? And did He not constitute it accordingly? And
are not we all obliged to yield obedience to the institutions
of God? Most vain disputant, you must either abandon
your original right, or renounce the Christian religion ;
choose which of the two you will.

Next to St. Clement I should produce St. Ignatius, that
“temple of the Holy Ghost® ;” but it would itself make a book
to cite all which that most holy martyr has written upon
this subject. Every epistle of his, and every chapter, I had
almost said every sentence, does most fully confirm this our
spiritual society. But I have already considered St. Igna-
tius’s judgment concerning this controversy, where I insisted
on the argument drawn from schism.

Let us therefore proceed next to St. Irenzus, the disciple
of Polycarp. This most judicious author says many excel-
lent things concerning the Christian society. ‘“ We can

f (Rights, &c., c. i]
& 6 Oeopdpos.—{ Martyrium S. Ignat., c. 4. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 164. ]

HICKES. Rr

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

306 Testimony of St. Ireneus to the Apostolical succession,

appennrx. enumerate those,” says he, “ who were made bishops in the

NO. VIII.

[er]

Churches by the Apostles, and their successors down to us.
... For to this Church” (he speaks of the Roman) “ by reason
of her more powerful principality, it is necessary that every
Church come, that is, all the faithful wheresoever.” And
again': ‘‘ For which reason it is necessary to obey the priests
that are in the Church, these who have their succession from
the Apostles, as we have shewn; who with the succession of
the episcopacy have received a certain gift of truth, accord-
ing to the pleasure of the Father. But as to the rest, who
depart from the succession and are assembled in any place
whatsoever, we ought to suspect them, and look upon them
as heretics, and' such as disturb the peace, as persons puffed
up,” &e.

St. Irenzus is of the same opinion with St. Clement, and
teaches the same thing. He does most strenuously contend,
that our obedience in things appertaining to religion is due
to the priests, who are able to derive their succession from
the Apostles themselves. And what Irenzus understands by
succession will easily appear to any one that peruses his
book never so percursorily: he means without all doubt
episcopal ordination.

St. Irenzeus acknowledges no other method of ordaining
ecclesiastics; nor was any other method known to the
second century, in which he flourished. He affirms that the
first bishops were ordained by the Apostles, without any the
least mention of the people. Indeed, that in the second
century ordinations were appropriated to the bishops alone
is not unwillingly owned even by such of the patrons of an
equality among the clergy as have any learning or inge-
nuity. To them, therefore, who derive their succession
from the Apostles, to them who are ordained by bishops,

nh Habemus annumerare eos, qui ab
Apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ec-
clesiis, et successores eorum usque ad
nos. ... Ad hance enim ecclesiam (Ro-
manam) propter potiorem (potentiorem
ed. Oxon.) principalitatem necesse est
omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos
qui sunt undique fideles.—S. Iren. adv.
Her., lib. ili. c. 3. [p. 175. ed. Ben. |

i Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt,
presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui

successionem habent ab apostolis sicut
ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus suc-
cessione charisma veritatis certum, se-
cundum placitum Patris, acceperunt:
reliquos vero qui absistunt a principali
successione, et quocunque loco colli-
gunt (al. colliguntur), suspectos habere,
vel quasi hereticos, [et malz senten-
tia] vel quasi scindentes et elatos,
&c:—Id, bids) libeaye ice 406 41ic, 926.
p. 262. ed. Ben. ]

and the obligation to unity with it. 307

the greatest obedience is due, according to the opinion of avenss

St. Irenzeus, and with them we are obliged to communicate. -
But they on the contrary, “who depart from this primary
succession,” that is, who separate from the episcopal com-
munion, “are to be suspected by us, and esteemed as here-
tics, and such as destroy the peace.” Now from hence it
manifestly follows that it is not lawful by any means for
the people to choose their own minister, to form a sect to
themselves, or when formed to join themselves to it: nay,
that all are tied by the strictest obligation to communicate
with bishops, who derive their succession from the Apostles.
They commit sin who do otherwise, and violate the divine
institution. They destroy the peace of the Church, are
severed from the Head Jesus Christ, and are in the great-
est danger of eternal damnation. Besides the most holy
father asserts, “that every Church is obliged to resort to
the Church of Rome, by reason of the more powerful prin-
cipality*.” This makes nothing for the papal tyranny: for
neither St. Irenzeus, nor the fathers of the second, third,
or fourth century, dreamed any thing concerning either the
monarchical supremacy of St. Peter, or the infallibility (of
his successors.) This I could easily shew, if it were to my
present purpose. That alone which this noble testimony
proves most evidently is that the Church of Christ is one
society, and a society that is obliged to preserve a most
firm peace and unity: but this firm and truly Christian
unity cannot possibly be obtained unless private Chris-
tians pay a most humble obedience to their priests, and the
priests do the like to the bishops, and the bishops to the
metropolitans. With these bonds the primitive Church
being both joined together and strengthened did flourish
with the greatest splendour, and in the midst of the flames
and swords of tyrants always came off conquering and tri-

DISSERT, I.

umphant. And I solemnly profess, (O miserable condition [John 17.

of the Christian world!) that for want of this unity, which
our most loving Saviour when He was now going to die
for us recommended to us in the most passionate manner,

k Viz., as the seat of the empire— 232, note 1.] et Can. 28. Cone. Chal-
Vid. Can. 3. Cone. Const. [Concilia, ced. [ibid., tom. iv. col. 1692, D;
toin. ii. col. 1126, D; quoted above, p. 1693, A. See above, p. 233, note r. |

21, 23.]

APPENDIX.

NO. VIL,

[Matt. 16.
i8.]

{John 21.
16.]

[John 20.
21—23. ]

308 St. Cyprian on the unity of the Church,

our religion seems to be rather a vain shadow than a vigor-
ous and living substance. This truly Christian unity is
utterly subverted and destroyed by our innovators (in reli-
gion), what with their being deceived through ignorance,
or inveigled by avarice, or hurried on headlong by their
ungovernable ambition. O most blessed Jesus, have com-
passion upon Thy Church, Thy most dear spouse, for she
has only Thee in whom she can confide.

We are come at last to St. Cyprian, a most holy martyr,
and egregious assertor of the unity of the Church. It were
endless to collect out of his works all things which make for
our purpose, which prove the Christian Church to be a true
and proper society ; which shew that out of this society there
is no hope of eternal salvation ; and which demonstrate that
the unity of the Church is placed in the bishop, from whom
all ordinations and ministerial powers are to be had. It will
be abundantly sufficient to pot out some of the more con-
siderable passages, and from them to explain the nature of
unity, according to the principles of St. Cyprian.

Let us begin with that elaborate and most valuable treatise
which he wrote against Novatianus, concerning the Unity of
the Church, a book most worthy (if any other) to be turned
over by all hands, and deeply fixed in every breast.

“The Lord,” says he!, “speaks thus to St. Peter: ‘I say
also unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the king-
dom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again He says to
the same (Apostle) after His resurrection: ‘ Feed My sheep.’
Upon one He builds His Church; and though He gives equal
power to all the Apostles, and says, ‘As My Father hath sent

dicit; ‘Pasce oves meas.’ Super (il-

1 Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum,
lum) unum edificat ecclesiam suam

‘Ego tibi dico,’ inquit, ‘quia tu es

Petrus, et super istam (hance ed. Ben.)
petram zdificabo ecclesiam meam, et
porte inferorum non vincent eam, Et
tibi dabo claves regni celorum, et que
ligaveris super terram, erunt ligata et
in ccelis; et quecunque solveris super
terram, erunt soluta et in ceelis.” Et
iterum eidem post resurrectionem suam

(et illi pascendas mandat oves suas):
et quamvis apostolis omnibus (post re-
surrectionem suam) parem potestatem
tribuat, et dicat: ‘sicut misit me Pater,
et ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum Sanc-
tum,’ &e., tamen ut unitatem manifes-
taret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno
incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit.

and the guilt and consequences of separation. 309

Me, even so send I you... Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ &c.,”
(which I desire to know how the papists can reconcile with
the primacy of St. Peter,) “yet to manifest the unity of the
Church, He by His authority so disposed the original of that
unity as that it should have its rise from one. For the rest
of the Apostles were the same with St. Peter, endowed with
an equal share of honour and power; but the beginning pro-
ceeds from an unity, that the Church may be shewn to be
one....Can he, that does not hold this unity, believe that he
holds the faith? Does he that opposes and resists the Church,
trust that he is in the Church, when also the blessed Apo-
stle St. Paul teaches the very same thing, and shews the

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

mystery of unity, saying: ‘One body, and one spirit, one (Eph. 4.

hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God.’... Whoever being separated from the Church of Christ,
is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of
the Church. Nor does he attain the rewards of Christ, who
forsakes Christ’s Church. He is a stranger, he is a profane
person, he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his
father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one
could escape who was out of Noah’s ark, he shall also escape
who is out of the Church ... What peace therefore do the
enemies of the brethren promise themselves? What sacri-
fices do the rivals of the priests imagine they offer up? Do
they think that Christ is with them, when assembled, who
are assembled out of Christ’s Church? Though such persons
should be put to death for confessing the name of Christ, yet
that stain would not be washed off even with their blood.
sis ecclesie separatur. Nec pervenit

(perveniet ed. Ben.) ad Christi praemia,
quirelinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus

Hoc erant utique (et) czteri apostoli,
quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prediti
et honoris et potestatis sed exordium ab

unitate proficiscitur, (et primatus Pe-
tro datur) ut (una Christi) ecclesia (et
cathedra) una monstretur. . . Hane ec-
clesie unitatem qui non tenet, tenere
se fidem credit? Qui ecclesiz renititur
et resistit, (qui cathedram Petri, super
quem fundata est ecclesia desevit) in
ecclesia se esse confidit? Quando et
beatus apostolus Paulus hoc idem do-
ceat, et sacramentum unitatis ostendat,
dicens: ‘unum corpus, et unus Spiritus,
una spes vocationis vestr, unus Domi-
nus, una fides, unum baptisma, unus
Deus.’ .... Quisquis ab ecclesia se-
gregatus adultere jungitur, a promis-

est, profanus est, hostis est: habere jam
non potest Deum patrem, qui eccle-
siam non habet matrem. Si potuit
evadere quisquam qui extra arcam Noe
fuit; et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit,
evadet, (evadit ed. Ben.) .... Quam
sibi igitur pacem promittunt inimici
fratrum? Que sacrificia celebrare se
credunt zmuli sacerdotum? An secum
esse Christum cum collecti fuerint opi-
nantur, qui extra Christi ecclesiam col-
liguntur? Tales etiamsi occisi in con-
fessione nominis fuerint, macula ista
nec sanguine abluitur. Inexpiabilis et
gravis culpa discordiz, nec passione

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

310 St. Cyprian on the sin of schism ;

The grievous and inexpiable guilt of division is not purged
away even by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not
in the Church. He cannot attain the kingdom (of heaven,)
who forsakes her that shall reign (there.)... Does he fancy
himself to be with Christ, who acts against Christ’s priests ?
who separates himself from the society of His clergy and
people? He bears arms against the Church, and fights
against the order and disposal of God. An enemy to the
altar, and a rebel against the sacrifice of Christ, for faith
perfidious, for religion sacrilegious; a disobedient servant,
an undutiful son, and an enemy instead of a brother; who
despising the bishops, and forsaking the priests of God, dares
erect another altar, offer up another prayer with unhallowed
lips, and by false sacrifices profane the truth of our Lord’s
own oblation of Himself; not vouchsafing to know, that he
who resists the ordinance of God, is for that audacious rash-
ness punished with divine vengeance. ... God is one, and
Christ one, His Church one, and the faith one, and one
people jomed together by the cement of concord unto the
solid unity of a body. The unity cannot be divided, nor the
one body be broken in sunder by the dissolution of its joints,
and rent in pieces by tearing out its bowels. Whatever is
torn from the womb, cannot live apart, but loses all means of
subsistence.”

Here we may observe with the greatest satisfaction, that
there is nothing contaimed in all this Epistle (as much as it
may seem too severe and unreasonable) but what is abun-
dantly confirmed by the most express words of St. Ignatius.
purgatur. Esse martyr non potest, qui

in ecclesia non est. Ad regnum per-
venire non poterit, qui eam, que reg-

quoniam qui contra ordinationem Dei
nititur, ob temeritatis audaciam divina
animadversione punitur. . ... Deus

natura est, derelinquit. . ..An esse
sibi cum Christo videtur, qui adver-
sus sacerdotes Christi facit? Qui se a
cleri ejus et plebis societate secernit?
Arma ille contra ecclesiam portat, con-
tra Dei dispositionem repugnat: hostis
altaris, adversus sacrificium Christi re-
bellis, pro fide perfidus, pro religione
sacrilegus, inobsequens servus, filius
impius, frater inimicus, contemptis
episcopis, et Dei sacerdotibus develictis
constituere audet aliud altare, precem
alteram illicitis vocibus facere, Domi-
nice hostiz veritatem per falsa sacri-
ficia profanare; nec [dignatur]} scire,

unus est, et Christus unus, et una
ecclesia ejus, et fides una, et plebs
(una) in solidam corporis unitatem
concordiz glutino copulata. Scindi
unitas non potest, nee corpus unum dis-
cidio compaginis separari, divulsis lace-
ratione visceribus in frusta discerpi.
Quicquid a matrice discesserit, seor-
sim vivere et spirare non poterit; sub-
stantiam salutis amittit—sS. Cypr. de
Unit. Eccl. | pp. 194, 195, sqq. ed. Ben.
The words enclosed in parentheses are
in the Benedictine edition, but not in
the Oxford or Amsterdam editions
which Hughes used. ]

his principles those of the whole Church. 311

From hence we may easily understand, that these principles
of ecclesiastical unity were not born with St. Cyprian, but
derived down to us by a continual succession from the very
times of the Apostles. From this most noble treatise we
learn, not only what St. Cyprian’s opinion was concerning
the unity of the Church, and that of the African bishops with
him, but what all the bishops of all ages and places have
most firmly believed concerning this important question. It
is not necessary to dwell longer on the explication of these
passages of St. Cyprian, for they are so clear and perspicu-
ous, that nothing can be more. Nor will it be worth while
to collect other passages of the same father, to confirm these
that I have already produced. For almost in every Epistle
you will find many things which demonstrate the same
opinion. But they who, not content with these, desire to
obtain a farther knowledge of this father’s principles, I most
earnestly recommend to them the learned Mr. Dodwell’s
Dissertations upon St. Cyprian™, in which nothing can be
wanting that may seem any way to conduce to the illustra-
tion of this matter.

However, it may be neither troublesome nor altogether
useless to observe these few things.

1. That the African bishops were of opinion, that the
unity of the Church was to be reckoned amongst the most
fundamental points; that out of this unity no Sacraments
were efficaciously administered, no ordinations were to be
accounted lawful, and in one word, no hope of eternal salva-
tion was possible to be obtained.

2. That schism is a crime so grievous, so dangerous, and so
opposite to the Christian religion, that they thought no exag-
geration of words could express it ; nay, they went so far as to
think it could not be atoned for even by martyrdom itself.

3. That the principle of unity was placed in the bishop
alone, without whose authority nothing could be done in the
Church.

These are those Cyprianic principles so much talked of,
which the whole primitive Church did always most firmly
hold, and which are no other than what St. Cyprian had

m [Dissertationes Cyprianice ab Henrico Dodwello, Oxon. 1684. et ap. Op.
S. Cypr. Oxon. 1682. ]

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

312 That the Church is a society distinct from the State

a learnt from the Irenzeus’s and Ignatius’s, and they from the

———— Apostles. Whether therefore we have respect to the sacred
oracles themselves, or to the perpetual practice of the Catho-
lic Church, or to the testimonies of the most holy fathers, it
will abundantly appear, that Jesus Christ has founded a true
and proper society, perfectly separate and distinct from all
the societies of this world.

And indeed if we consult reason itself, we shall find that
too wonderfully on our side in this question; for as I have
been very often considering of the Christian religion, nothing
has appeared to me more plain and evident, than that that
society is as distinct as can be imagined from all the societies
of this world. For thus I used to think with myself; those
societies which cannot only subsist, but also increase and
flourish separately from each other, and without any other’s
help or protection, those societies without all doubt are most
distinct. This seems to be evident from the very nature of
society, for that which can by itself, and without the aid of
another hold together very well and in good order, must
needs have in itself without any regard to other societies all
those things that are necessary to constitute a society, and
consequently is of itself a true and proper society, in its own
nature separate from all others. And although we suppose
this society to be so blended and confounded with certain
other communities, that it is very difficult to distinguish one
from the other, yet it can by no means be denied, after what
I have been saying, that one remains distinct from the other,
and may subsist without it. Having laid down these princi-
ples, which always appeared to me most evident, I applied
my mind seriously to consider the Christian religion. It was
a long time before the profession of our most holy faith had
the least assistance or defence from the powers of this world.
It long experienced the greatest enmity from the Roman
commonwealth, it long struggled with the most cruel tyrants,
monsters of men, and reproaches of mankind, who used all
their endeavours utterly to overthrow the new-born religion.
There passed three hundred years and upwards before God
raised up Constantine to protect and preserve the Church of
Christ. During all this long and tedious space of time she
suffered the rage of the Roman emperors, and being weak-

shewn by its power of existing independently of it. 3138

ened with innumerable persecutions, flourished apparently by
the divine assistance. Here it will be easy to discern what we
are to judge of the Christian Church, whether it be a true
society or no, and whether it can subsist without the civil
magistrate. That in those days it was divided from the
secular society no man will deny, and yet it is most manifest
that it even then remained a society. Nay, the Christian
religion was at that time a society, extended far and wide,
spread with wonderful celerity over all the face of the whole
earth, and joined together under its own governors by the
strictest bonds of communion. This heavenly society was so
far from ever sinking under the weight of all the persecutions
it suffered from the most subtle malice of those tyrants, that
it always came off with advantage, flourished and triumphed
daily, and from its innumerable martyrdoms received both
glory and increase. From all which it seems to me most
manifest, that the Christian is a true and proper society, and
that it still continues entire and distinct from all the societies
of this world. And although from that protection and those
various advantages given to it by the Christian emperors,
there accrues to the civil power a very great authority in
matters ecclesiastical, yet if the civil power act any thing in
prejudice to the fundamental agreements! of the Christian
society, if it either recommend heresy by its authority, or
drive its people to it by force, if it defend those that make
schisms, I mean if [it] so defend them as to oblige its sub-
jects to join with the schismatics, if it invade and profane the
sacerdotal offices ; in any of these cases the Christian society
shall immediately withdraw from the civil, and fly to its own
diyine rights, which can never be transferred; shall subsist
as a society of itself, by its own spiritual principles: and to
this Christian society, thus separated from the civil, and
using its own rights, all men are obliged to associate them-
selves under the severest peril of eternal damnation, whatever
damage they are like to suffer in this world for their so doing.
For it has pleased God to place the ordinary means of salva-
tion not in the state but in the Church, and He has not en-
trusted them with the princes of this world, but with the
bishops, who are the princes of His Church.

But farther, that the Christian Church is a true and proper

HICKES, ss

HUGHES
DISSERT. FE.

1 [pacta,
orig. |

314 The Church shewn to be a distinct society from its

arrenpix. society, distinct from the societies of this world, may be proved
aw from the grounds, and nature, and end of these societies,
which are all various and different. All men know that the civil
society arises from this principal ground, that man is of his own
nature a political animal, which by a certain innate impulse is
driven to join with others in society. And it is also founded
for this end, that men may obtain the greatest felicity which
by means purely natural it is possible to arrive at in this life.
But both the ground and the end of the Christian Church
are far different; for this society could never have been in-
vented by the mind of man, but is wholly owing to revela-
tion. And this revealed religion is therefore instituted, that
men may learn from it so to order their lives in this world,
that in the next they may enjoy eternal happiness with the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are essentially one God.
Nor is it enough to believe that the Christian faith is true,
but we are also obliged openly and courageously to profess
this faith before all mankind, although this our profession be
attended with the severest punishments. Neither is a bare
profession sufficient, though it be open and ingenuous; we
are farther obliged to combine together in a society, to the
end that we may worship our Saviour according to His own
institution, and partake of His Sacraments duly consecrated ;
and they who despise this public worship are deservedly
accounted to have denied their faith. On this principle
alone, viz., that Christians are obliged to meet together to
worship Jesus Christ according to His institution, does that
spiritual society depend for which we dispute. And from
hence we easily gather, that that society is most different
from the civil, and depends upon a different authority; for
Christians are obliged to join themselves to this society, not
by any authority of the state, but by the same divine autho-
rity which instituted our religion. This obligation of meet-
ing together to perform public worship to Jesus Christ, is
such as no civil power can either take away, or change, or
diminish. Therefore the Christian Church is a true and
proper society, different from these worldly societies, because
it has certain privileges granted to it by divine authority
which the civil magistrate can neither take away nor violate.
It is therefore a society different from the civil, because all

origin, nature, end, authority, and privileges. 515

men are obliged to join themselves to this society, whether
the public authority command them so to do or forbid
them. From thence it appears that this obligation is not
derived from the civil magistrate, but from a certain former
obligation; and consequently it follows that the Christian
Church is not the same society with the state; for if the
Church and the state did constitute one and the same society,
all the obligation that we are under of joining ourselves to
this society would arise from the civil authority; and the
consequence of that would be, that we should be under no
such obligation if the secular magistrate should appoint other-
wise. Therefore Hobbes rightly determined from his prin-
ciples, that no man is obliged openly to profess the Christian
faith, if that be displeasing to the supreme power; nay, and
that even the holy Scripture cannot have the nature of a law
if the civil power reject it. It farther appears, that the
Church of Christ is not the same society with the civil autho-
rity, from the various and different privileges of each society;
for if it be granted to be the same, then he that has right to
the civil society has also right to the spiritual communion
of the Church; and reciprocally, he that has right to the
ecclesiastical thereby acquires also a right to the civil soci-
ety, and to all those emoluments which are annexed to that
society: but this is manifestly repugnant both to reason and
to the constant opinion of all men and all ages. These
arguments are such as have abundantly convinced me, and
will I hope persuade others, that the Christian Church is
one proper society, as distinct as can be imagined from all
the societies of this world.

It remains that I say something briefly concerning the
unity of this spiritual society; for this new reformer or
restorer of the Church asserts" that the Catholic Church
consists of a great many different societies, which are all
independent of each other, insomuch that he who is con-
secrated a bishop in one country, if he remove to another
immediately becomes a layman. Nay, he affirms that the
contrary hypothesis is so foolish and absurd that it is im-
possible to defend it without having recourse to some uni-
versal bishop, such for instance as the bishop of Rome.

n (Rights, chap. x. See above, vol. i. p. 298, sqq.]

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIIL

316 The oneness of the Church shewn from the privileges

On this head he has employed his whole tenth chapter, with
an assurance equal to his ignorance.

On the contrary, I assert with the primitive Church, that
the Catholic Church, wheresoever dispersed, is only one
society, united by the strictest bond of communion.

1. My first argument for the proof of this shall be drawn
from the Sacrament of Baptism. By being baptized in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghast,
we are not only made members of the particular Church
wherein we live, but obtain a right to the communion of the
whole Catholic Church. To whatever part of the world we
Christians travel, by our baptism we have a right to commu-
nicate with that Church in ecclesiastical offices. But this
could not be unless all particular Christian Churches did
constitute one and the same society, for no society can by
any private act confer a right to the privileges of another
society ; and I make no doubt but all the Christians in the
world, from the times of the Apostles down to ours, were
always persuaded that by baptism they were made members
not of any particular Church, but of the universal Christian
society. ‘There is not any thing which is more confirmed by
the constant suffrage of Christians than that by virtue of
their baptism all Christians obtain a right to communicate
with all Churches whatsoever, and with all assemblies con-
secrated to the public worship.

2. A second argument may be fetched from excommuni-
cation, as it was administered in the primitive Church.
Nothing can be more notorious to such as are the least
versed in ecclesiastical antiquities, than that he who was
excommunicated from any particular Church was thereby
thrown out of the whole Catholic Church. Thus the twelfth
apostolic canon directs®, “If any clergyman or layman that
is excommunicated, or suspended from communion, shall
remove, and be received in another city, let both him that
receives him be excommunicated and he that is received.
And though he be already excommunicated, yet let his ex-

° ef Tis KAnpikds 7) Aaikds &pwpicué- ade 6 apopituds, ws Wevoauevw Kat
Vos, TOL &dextos, dwerOay ev érépa wb- amarhaavti Thy exxdnolay Tod @cod.—
Ae, dex On tivev ypaupdrwy ovoratinay, [Can. Apost. xii, Concilia, tom. i. col.
apopifer Ow kal 6 Sefduevos kal d Sex- 28, B,C. See above, pp. 201, sqq. |
Gels. €f d€ Apwpiopévos etn, emitewerw

of Baptism ; and the rules of excommunication. 317

communication be farther extended, as against one that has
lied to and deceived the Church of God.” This practice of
the Church is very well explained by Synesius in his Epistle
concerning Andronicus, where we have these words”: “The
Church of Ptolemais sends these orders to her sisters all
over the world. Let no temple of God be opened to An-
dronicus and his adherents, nor to Thoas and his. Let
every holy place be shut against them, and every temple
and fold. The devil has no part in paradise. ... But if any
one despise this as the Church of a small city, and shall
receive those whom she has excommunicated, as if there
was no necessity of obeying a poor (Church,) let him know
that he has divided the Church which Christ will have to be
one. And such a one, whether he be a deacon, or a priest,
or a bishop, shall by us be esteemed no otherwise than An-
dronicus himself; and we will neither give him the right
hand (of fellowship,) nor ever eat with him at the same
table; and we will be very far from partaking of the inef-
fable mystery with such as are willing to take part with
Andronicus and Thoas.”

A very remarkable passage this, and one that fully de-
monstrates the truth of my notion of the Christian Church.
Synesius anathematizes Andronicus and Thoas for certain
very heinous crimes. He notifies the matter to all other
Churches, and does not so much advise as command them
to condemn those persons by an unanimous suffrage, and
exclude them from the public assemblies; and that Church
which should do otherwise, which should admit them to
communion, he judges them thereby to tear the Church in
sunder, which Christ Himself appointed should be one. In
the opinion, therefore, of Synesius, the unity of the Church
does herein consist, that the public acts of any one Church
are confirmed by the Church universal.

p 7 MroAcuatdos exkAnata, rd5e mpds

hy pay 6 Xowwrds elvac BobAerat. ‘O dE
TUS ATaVTAXOU YHs EavTAs adeApas d1a-

n~ of > \
To.ovTos, el Te AcviTns eaTly, ef Te mpET-

, as y =) SPs
TaTTeTat’ ~“Avdpovixw» Kat Tots avrod,
Odavri kat Tots abrod pndev avoryvticbw
TE“EVOS TOD OEod" Eras avTois lepds aro-
t / an al

kekAcla Ow, kal onkds, kal mepiBoAdos* ovK
FA a , > /

éoTt TG SiaBdrAw wepos ev mapadelow...
el S€ Tis Gs pixpomoAtriy GrockuBaAdioet
Thy exxanolay, kal déEera Tos amoKn-
puKTous avTijs, os obk dydyKn TH wevyTe
melec0a toTw oxieas Thy exKAnoiay,

Burepos, ef te erickomos, map’ iuiy év
*Avdpovixov polpa rerdtera, kal ore
euBarovuev adbt@ Sekiav, ore amb THs
aUTHS TOTE OLTHTOUEOA’ TOAAOD 5H Seh-
TOMEV KolvwViooL THS amoppnrov TEAE~
THS, Tos COeAnTaTW ExEW mepida meTa
*Avdpoviicov Kat Osavros.—[ Synesii Cy-
renensis Epist. lviii,ad Episcopos. Op.,
p- 203. |

HUGHES

DISSERT. I.

APPENDIX.
NO. VIIL.

318 The belief in the Church an article of the Creed.

Consonant hereto is that which Epiphanius relates of
Marcion, that being excommunicated from the Church by
his father, he betook himself to the presbyters of the Church
of Rome; for Hyginus, bishop of that see, was dead, and no
other yet chosen to succeed him; that he besought them
that he might be permitted to communicate with the Latin
Church, and that the Roman presbyters answered him to
this purpose': “ We cannot do this without the permission
of your venerable father ;” adding this reason for it, “ be-
cause there is one faith and one mind, and we cannot act
in opposition to our good colleague and your father.” From
all this it appears sufficiently that according to the opinion
of the most ancient fathers the Catholic Church is one and
the same society: for if it consisted of different societies
independent of each other, it could never have happened that
a person excommunicated from one particular Church should
be thereby excluded from all others. It is therefore suffi-
ciently proved, both from baptism and from excommunication,
that the Christian Church does not consist of divers mem-
bers all independent of one another, but that it composes one
society, joined together by the straitest bond of unity.

3. We may also prove that this is the true notion of the
Church, from that article of our Creed in which we are
taught to profess our belief of the holy Catholic Church.
This article concerning the Church is found in the most an-
cient Creeds, as in that of Jerusalem’ and in the Alexan-
driant. And what pious antiquity understood by this arti-
cle is abundantly manifest from thence, that they always
made use of this weapon against heretics, as may be seen in
St. Augustine and St. Jerome. If we go to the sacred ora-
cles, many passages occur there which confirm this notion
of the Church. It will easily be granted that the word
Church" has many significations. Sometimes it may mean
the place where the Church is gathered together*; but it

¥ ov Suvducba &vev THs emitpom7js op. 285, A.|

Tov Titov matpds Cou TOUT Toto" jula ' [Epist. Alexand. ap. Theodoret.
yap coTw 7 mlotis, Kad ula dudvoia, kat Hist. Eccl., lib. ic. 4. p. 19.]

ov Suvdueba evayTimOivat TG KAAG TvA- éxkAnola.

AetToupy@, Tatpt 5e o@.—[S. Epiphan. x “When ye come together in the
Her. xlii. § 2. Op., tom. i, p- 303, C. Church, I hear that there be divisions
See above, p. 205, note in| among you;’’ 1 Cor, xi. 18.

* [S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. xviii. Op.,

Use of the word in Scripture and the Apostolic Fathers. 319

very often signifies the multitude of the faithful who em-
brace the Christian religion. And this we read differently
expressed, sometimes of the Churches of God, and the
Churches of the saints; and sometimes of the Church, as
of that in Priscilla’s and Aquila’s houseY. But it is to be
observed, and was observed long since by the great Bishop
Pearson’, that “as often as the holy Scripture speaks of any
country or people converted to the faith, it always uses the
word Churches in the plural number; but when it speaks
of a city, though it were never so large, and contained many
congregations of the faithful, it only calls it one Church*.”
And this manner of writing was imitated by the most an-
cient authors.

St. Ignatius superscribes an epistle®, “To the Church of
God, which presides in the place of the chorus! of the? [chori,
Romans,” (according to the old Latin version,) or rather, papas
in the city and suburbs of Rome’. Clemens Romanus?:

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome.” Poly-
earp®: “To the Church of God sojourning at Philippi.”
From these superscriptions of epistles it is very easy to ob-
serve that Church always answers to city. Who does not
know that vwapo:xia among the ancients signifies the same
thing that dco/knovs or diocese does with us. But a Church
founded in one city never consisted of various and different
congregations independent of each other, (as some late
dreamers have with wonderful subtlety imagined,) but al-
ways comprised the whole city, together with all its subur-
bicary districts in their utmost extent. And after the same
manner that several congregations united to their bishop

HUGHES
DISSERT. I.

y “Greet the Church that is in their

house ;’’ Rom. xvi. 5.

z [Bishop Pearson’s Exposition of
the Creed, Art. ix. p. 566. Oxford,
1833. ]

a “Unto the Church of God which is
at Corinth;’”’ 1 Cor.i. 2. ‘‘ At that time
there was a great persecution against
the Church which was at Jerusalem ;’
Acts viii. 1. ‘ Unto the Church of the
Thessalonians ;’’ 2 Thess. i.1. ‘*The
Church of the Laodiceans;’’ Coloss. iv.
16.

6 rh exkAnola Oeod iris mporabntat
ev tTém@ xXwplov ‘Payatwy.—[S. Ignat,

Ep. ad Rom. init. ap. Patr. Apost., tom.
ii. p. 25.] Ecclesia Dei que presidet
in loco chori Romanorum.—[ Vet. Int.,
ibid., p. 128.]

¢ Vide Pearson. not. in loc.—[ Pear-
soni Vindicie Ignatiane, pars ii. c. 16.

. de inscriptione Epistola ad Roma-
nos disputatur; ad cale. Patr. Apost.,
tom. ii. pp. 437, 438. ]

4 éxxAnota Tod Ocod 7 Tapoikovoa
‘Péunv.—[S. Clem. Ep. ad Cor. init.,
Patr. Apost., tom. i. pp. 145, 146. ]

& éxxAnola [tod] Gcod TH mapoixovon
$i\immois.— |S. Polycarp. Ep. ad Phil.
init. ibid. tom. ii. p. 186. |

APPENDIX.

NO, VUL,.

320 The intercommunion and subordination of Churches.

composed a diocesan Church, also divers diocesan Churches
united to the archbishop or principal bishop‘ constituted a
provincial Church. But all the provincial Churches spread
over the whole world preserved a most strict peace among
themselves by means of their communicatory and recom-
mendatory letters, Imsomuch that what one Church did,
whether in admitting catechumens to baptism, or in ex-
communicating the wicked and profane, was also ratified by
the rest. Hence there arises one society, one Church made
up of various provincial Churches, and united to Jesus Christ
alone, who is the head of all Churches. Nor let any one
imagine that all this ecclesiastical polity is only owing to
human prudence and the canons of councils, for it is
founded in that great command of Jesus Christ, by which
He so often enjoined His disciples to “follow after peace,”
and most diligently to “avoid divisions and schisms,” and
to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
I make no doubt but the Apostles themselves understood
these passages concerning the most firm unity of the eccle-
siastical society ; for which reason all the Apostles did by
unanimous consent so institute Churches that they might
with all convenience possible obtain this most desired end.
They appointed the private congregations of every parti-
cular Church should be subject to their bishop, the episco-
pal Churches to their archbishop, and all to a general coun-
cil, which without all dispute has the greatest authority, and
whose decrees it is the greatest insolence and madness to
oppose. Now that this was the sense and judgment of the
Apostles there are many arguments to convince us. As

lst. The incomparable Archbishop Ussher has with very
great variety of learning proved® that the angels in the Apo-
calypse were not only bishops, but also archbishops or me-
tropolitans, to whom episcopal Churches ever acknowledged
a certain obedience to be due. Concerning these apostolical
Churches the Holy Spirit always speaks in the singular num-
ber": “Unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus.” From

f rpdtw emiokdre. 61, sqq. ed. Dublin. ]
e {The original of Bishops and Me- ht@ ayyeAw THs Edecivns eKkA7-
tropolitans briefly laid down by James gfas.—Apoc. ii. 1.

Ussher, (1641.) Works, vol. vii. pp.

Proofs of dependence of Churches. 321

whence it follows, Ist, That different diocesan Churches
united to an archbishop, as to the centre of unity, do in
the sense of the Holy Spirit constitute one Church. 2ndly,
That this dependence of Churches obtained in the times of
the Apostles. 3rdly, That it was the opinion of the Apo-
stles that by this means the unity of the Catholic Church
was best consulted.

2udly. This dependence of Churches, for which I am con-
tending, is wonderfully proved from that famous controversy
concerning circumcision, and the council of Jerusalem which
was convened upon that occasioni. A question arises con-
cerning circumcision: the Judaizing Christians urge that
this rite is necessary even under the Gospel; on the con-
trary, St. Barnabas and St. Paul deny this. But neither
St. Barnabas nor St. Paul (though both were divinely in-
spired) attempted to decide this controversy. They appeal
to the Church of Jerusalem, to St. James the bishop, and to
the Apostles in council: the council is convened, and the
question determined by the common suffrages of them all.
This, to the best of my judgment, evidently proves a mani-
fest dependence of Churches.

drdly. It is certain that the Churches of Jerusalem, An-
tioch, Rome, and Alexandria, were all founded by the Apo-
stles themselves. It is also certain that these very Churches,
in the times immediately following the Apostles, were the
heads of many Churches, to which, “ by reason of their more
powerful principality,” (as St. Irenzeus speaks*,) all inferior
Churches were wont to come. Why, therefore, may we not
conclude that that was the meaning of the Apostles, that
Churches should be so disposed, viz., in such subordination,
that the unity of the Catholic Church might remain safe and
entire ?

These arguments abundantly prove that the Christian
Church is one society most closely united together. It
were very easy to confirm this notion of the Church by
innumerable testimonies of the holy fathers, if that were
my present purpose. I will select two or three. St. Cyprian

i Acts xv. tem.—S. Iren. cont. Her., lib. ili. c. 3;
k (Propter potentiorem principalita- quoted above, p. 306. ]
HICKES. » t

HUGHES

DISSERT, I.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

322 Testimony of SS. Cyprian, Ireneus, Tertullian.

says': “The Lord speaks thus to St. Peter: ‘I say unto
thee that thou art Peter,’ &c.; and again He says to him
after His resurrection, ‘Feed My sheep.’ And though He
gives an equal power to all His Apostles, and says, ‘As My
Father sent Me, &c., yet to manifest the unity (of the
Church), He by His authority has so disposed the original
of that unity, as that it should have its rise from one; for
the rest of the Apostles were the same with St. Peter, en-
dowed with an equal share of honour and power, but the
beginning proceeds from an unity, that the Church may be
manifested to be one. For there is one God and one Christ ;
His Church one and the faith one, one people joined to-
gether by the cement of concord into the solid unity of a
body.”” And again™: “The episcopacy is but one, and is
so shared among all bishops as that each has a right to the
whole. The Church also is one, which by a fruitful increase
is widely extended to a multitude.” But if the episcopacy
be no more than one, and all bishops do so share this one
episcopacy among them as that each has a right to the
whole, it follows, that he, who is regularly ordained a bishop
in any one Church, will be owned as a bishop by the whole
Catholic Church ; and that, from that very ordination of his,
the care of the whole Catholic Church is incumbent upon
him. St. Irenzeus says of the Church": “that though she
is dispersed over the whole world, yet she dwells as it were
in one house.” And Tertullian says°: ‘“ We and they have
one faith, one God, the same Christ, the same hope, the
same Sacrament of Baptism; in a word, we are one Church.”
These passages are sufficient to shew what opinion was en-
tertained concerning the nature of the Catholic Church by
the most holy fathers, even those that lived almost in the
next age to the Apostles. Whether, therefore, we consider
the arguments drawn from baptism and excommunication,

1 §.Cypr. de Unitat. Eccl.; [quoted
above, pp. 808—310. ]

™ Episcopatus unus est, cujus a sin-
gulis in solidum pars tenetur. Eccle-
sia quoque una est, que in multitndi-
nem latius incremento fxcunditatis ex-
tenditur.—S. Cyprian. de Unitat. Ec-
cles. [p. 195.]

" 9 exkAnola, Kalrep év bAw TE Kd-

ou Siermapuevn. . ws eva oikoy oikovca.
—S. Iren. cont. Her., lib. i. c. 10. [p.
49. ]

° Una nobis etillis fides, unus Deus,
idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem la-
vacri sacramenta; semel dixerim, una
ecclesia sumus.—Tertull. De Veland.
Virgin. cap. 2. [Op., p. 173. ]

Christ instituted a form of Church Government. 328

or the signification of the word “ Church” in the holy Scrip-
tures, or the constant practice and custom of the Church, or
lastly, the testimonies of the holy fathers, it is necessary to
believe,

lst. That the Christian Church is a true and proper
society, distinct from all the societies of this world.

2ndly. That the Catholic Church, wheresoever dispersed,
is only one society united by the strictest bond of union.

DISSERTATION IT.

THE APOSTLES CONSTITUTED BISHOFS FOR THE PERPETUAL GOVERNMENT OF
THE CHURCH, WITH A PECULIAR POWER OF ORDINATION.

Havine proved that the Christian Church is a true and
proper society, my method seems to require that I should
proceed to speak concerning the governors to whom the
administration of this society is committed. I therefore
assert that the Apostles constituted bishops for the per-
petual government of the Church, with a peculiar power of
ordination.

But to the end that this dissertation concerning the
government of the Church may be the more clear and per-
spicuous, I shall premise some things which will give the
greatest light to this controversy.

1. It is agreed between us and our adversaries, at least
the Presbyterians, that Jesus Christ has instituted a certain
form of Church government from which it were a heinous sin
to depart. I confess, when I seriously read over St. Paul’s
Epistles to Titus and to Timothy, it seems to me very wonder-
ful that it could come into any one’s mind to think the con-
trary. But this is so fully confirmed by St. Clement?, a per-
son of the greatest integrity and authority, that nothing that
is of the least moment can be alleged against it.

2. There is a very great difference to be made between a
Church to be founded, and a Church which is already regu-
larly founded and perfect in all its parts. It is foolish and
absurd to expect that the Scriptures should particularly enu-

P [See above, p. 304. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT. I.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIIT.

324 Jewish form of Church Government.

merate all the offices in the Church, when the Christian
Church was not yet come to full maturity.

3. And for that reason the testimonies of the second cen-
tury, when the Church was now perfect and consummate, will
be the safest judges in this controversy.

4, From all this we may gather, that our schismatics are
guilty of the most senseless trifling, as often as they impor-
tunately demand that we should prove our three orders (viz.,
of bishops, priests, and deacons) from clear and express
words of holy Scripture. It seems abundantly sufficient for
us and our cause, if we can prove (which we can very easily)
that the Apostles committed the care and government of
cities converted to the Christian faith to single persons, with
a peculiar power of ordination, which could not be adminis-
tered by those of the inferior orders.

5. I assert therefore against all innovators whatsoever, that
the holy Scripture of the New Testament (if it be expounded
according to the custom either of the temple or of the syna-
gogue, and the universal practice of the primitive Church
both of the first and second century) does most clearly and
fully prove that the Apostles constituted bishops for the per-
petual government of the Catholic Church, with a peculiar
power of ordination.

6. Jesus Christ did punctually imitate the Jewish rites and
institutions, as sufficiently appears in the Sacraments of Bap-
tism and of the Lord’s Supper. And for that reason it is
very probable, that also in establishing the government of
the Church He had the Jewish form before His eyes, and
framed His own chiefly after the model of that. Now from
hence we may conclude, that that form of government which
approaches nearest to the Jewish, is the very same that Jesus
Christ has constituted. It farther follows from hence, that
all the passages of holy Scripture which concern the govern-
ment of the Church, particularly the Epistles to Timothy and
Titus, ought to be so understood as to agree most conve-
niently with the principles of the Jews, and by no means be
perverted and wrested with the utmost violence to make
them seem favourable to the unheard-of polities of innovators.

7. Every one knows very well that the Jewish form of
government, founded by God Himself, had Levites, priests, and

St. Timothy set over the Church of Ephesus. 325

the high-priest. It is therefore very consentancous to reason
that our Saviour instituted a form of government also in the
Christian Church not altogether unlike this. This certainly
is no contemptible argument of it, that almost all the fathers
do with one consent most constantly affirm that the thing
was so. Nay, that which perhaps will have more force with
our adversaries, St. Jerome himself, the most strenuous advo-
cate for the equality of orders, (as they are wont to boast,)
does most eagerly contend4 that deacons hold the same rank
in the Christian Church which Levites held in the Jewish;
that presbyters have obtained the same dignity which the
priests of old claimed, and that bishops have succeeded in
the room of the high-priest. And if we go from the temple
to the synagogues, we shall likewise in them easily perceive
no obscure footsteps of the same inequality; for besides the
ordinary ministers who were employed in reading lessons
and making exhortations, ey fad also vee apxiouvayo-
yos, or “ruler of the synagogue.’

Having premised these things, I come now to the confir-
mation of my proposition. And I begin my proofs with the
holy Scriptures.

We read in the Epistles to Timothy, that this holy person,
adorned with the greatest gifts, was by St. Paul set over the
Church of Ephesus, with full authority to do all things that
might any ways conduce to the confirmation and enlarge-
ment of that Church. There can be no doubt but Timothy
was superior to all the presbyters then constituted at Ephe-
sus, and endowed with a superior power. Nay, it most
clearly appears, that he received authority from St. Paul to
ordain deacons and presbyters, to reward’ “with double
honour” such as had “ruled well,’ to inflict ecclesiastical
censures even upon the presbyters themselves. It must
therefore remain a thing undoubted, that the Church of
Ephesus was committed to the care of Timothy alone, with
a peculiar power of ordination.

But here it is usually asked, not without very great

4 [Et ut sciamus traditiones aposto- —S. Hieron. Epist. exlvi. ad Evange-
licas sumtas de veteri Testamento,quod lum. Op., tom. i. col. 1077, D.]
Aaron et filii ejus atque Levite in tem- ¥ of Kad@s mpocaoT@res mpeaBTepor

plo fuerunt, hoe sibi episcopiet pres- 6umAjs Tips atiovc@woay; 1 Tim. v. 17.
byteri et diaconi vindicent in ecclesia. :

MUGHES
DISSERT., If.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII.

326 Two reasons to shew that St. Timothy

earnestness, whether St. Timothy is to be reckoned among
the ordinary ministers of the Church, or only among such as
were extraordinary ; namely, among those to whom greater
authority than ordinary was committed in order to found the
Christian Church, but was to expire with the Apostles and
those apostolic men. For this is that known subterfuge to
which the schismatics always have recourse.

I assert therefore that St. Timothy was an ordinary
governor of the Church, and exercised an ordinary authority,
the same which was to continue to the end of the world.

The reasons upon which I assert this are chiefly two: the
first is drawn from the intrinsic characters of these Epistles ;
the second from the constant opinion of the primitive
Church.

I. In the whole course of these Epistles we do not meet
with any thing at all that may occasion so much as the least
suspicion that the authority committed to St. Timothy was
extraordinary and to continue only for a time. Nay, all that
occurs there is to the contrary. Pray what is there which
Timothy used to do in the Church of Ephesus, that bishops
are not in all Churches both obliged and accustomed to do?

1. The Apostle in the first place exhorts him’, that he
would take most diligent care, that public prayers should be
duly offered up “for all sorts and conditions of men, espe-
cially for kings, and for all that are in authority.”

2. He admonishes Timothyt what sort of persons they
ought to be, and adorned with what virtues, whom he should
advance to the dignity of bishops.

3. He teaches him" how to behave himself towards here-
tics, and by what method to preserve safe and entire the peo-
ple committed to his charge.

4. He instructs him* how he should inflict ecclesiastical
censures, and what was fit for the elders, what for the
younger, and what for widows.

5. The Apostle also shews him’ how he ought to “ receive
an accusation against an elder” or presbyter: to pass by all
the rest of this kind.

5 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. * Thid., v.
* Tbid., iii. Y Ibid, v. 19.
« Ibid., iv.

exercised an ordinary authorily. 327

Now what can there be found in all these instructions
which does by any means denote an extraordinary office ?
what is there that does not shew such an one as was ordinary
and convenient for the Church in all times ?

For what reason is it therefore that they exclaim with so
much assurance, that Timothy was an extraordinary minis-
ter, and that nothing can be gathered from his authority
over presbyters which will make for our episcopal tyranny ?
But from what indications, from what characters do they
collect this? that is what they do not know.

Since therefore all the characters and indications contained
in the Epistles themselves do apparently declare his ministry
to have been ordinary, we are under an obligation to assert
that St. Timothy was an ordinary minister, and that he ex-
ercised no more than an ordinary authority, such as is very
necessary to all Churches in all times. Likewise I cannot
but think that St. Timothy affords us a most clear example
of episcopal government. The same may be said of Titus.

II. But I come to the second reason for which I asserted
that Timothy and Titus were ordinary ministers, and that is
taken from the constant opimion of the primitive Church.
And here it will be sufficient to observe, that all the holy
fathers who speak of Timothy and Titus, do always make
mention of them as of bishops ordained by the Apostles.
Eusebius says, “that Timothy is related to have been the
first that obtained the bishopric of the diocese of Ephesus,
as also Titus did that of the Churches in Crete.” The false
Ambrosius, whom the Presbyterians boast to be on their side,
asserts’, “that the Apostle consecrated Titus a_ bishop.”
Theophylact says’, “he was appointed bishop of Crete.”
We have also in this case the acknowledgment of St. Jerome,
that® “Timothy was ordained bishop of the Ephesians by
St. Paul.”

7 Tiudbeds ye unv ths ev "Edéow ra-
pouctas icropeira: mpOTos Thy emiskoTyy
eiAnxéevat ws kal Titos Tay eri Kpfhrns
éexkAnotav.—Euseb. Hist. Eecl., lib. iii.
cA. lips Oeil

4 Titum apostolus creayit episco-
pum. See his Commentaries upon Ti-
tus. { Pseudo-Ambros. in Epist. ad Tit.
ap. S. Ambros. Op., tom. ii. col. 313,
A.]

érickotos tis Kpirns Kexetpord-
vnto.—| Theophylact. Comm. in Ep. ad
Tit. Argumentum. Op., tom. ii. p. 621,
A.

: Timotheus Ephesiorum episcopus
ordinatus a beato Paulo.—[S. Hieron.
lib. de Viris Illust. (al. Script. Eccles.)
App. i. e Gree, Vers. Sophronii, § 8.
Op., tom. ii. col. 943. ]

TIUGHES
DISSERT. II.

328 All the Apostles agreed together in the

aprenvix. It is manifest therefore, as well from the intrinsic charac-

aS" ters of the Epistles as from the unanimous consent of the
holy fathers, that Timothy and Titus were ordinary minis-
ters of the Church, that is, bishops; from whence, therefore,
I would willingly know, had the Presbyterians those monu-
ments of antiquity, and under what rubbish were they
buried, which informed them that the authority committed
to Timothy was extraordinary, and such as was to continue
only for a time? Let them produce their evidences into the
open light, that we may at length be undeceived as to this
inveterate error. In the meantime, I beseech our adversaries
that they will vouchsafe to pardon me, if I am not willing to
have the same value for their unskilful conjectures as for the
clearest testimonies of Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other very
great men.

But they who reckon ecclesiastical government as one of
the things indifferent, are wont farther to urge that there is
no consequence from all this. St. Paul, say they, instituted
an episcopacy at Ephesus and at Crete, therefore episcopacy
is of divine right, therefore all other forms of Church-govern-
ment are unlawful. That does not follow. The other Apo-
stles might appoint altogether different forms of govern-
ment; nay, and perhaps St. Paul himself did in other places
make choice of another way.

I answer, that all the Apostles agreed together in the
institution of episcopal government ; for,

1. In the first place the Apostles were careful to observe
a wonderful uniformity in things of great moment; and
what can be of greater moment than the government of the
Church, without which the Christian religion could not
subsist ?

2. It is in fact most evident that the episcopal form of
government obtained in all Churches founded by the Apo-
stles, even in the very times of the Apostles themselves.

Now this will be easily confirmed by the particular enu-
meration of the successions. That the rulers of the Churches
of Asia, of which the Apocalypse makes mention, were
bishops, is a fact beyond all possibility of doubt. They are
called the “angels of the Churches ;” it is necessary, there-
fore, that they must have been single persons, for who ever

institution of Episcopal Government. 329

heard that an assembly of presbyters could be represented
by an angel? But here also it may be added, that our
Saviour very severely reproves the angels for the impieties
of the Churches. Now this plainly supposes that the whole
administration of the Church was committed to these single
persons, signified by the name of angels. But why do I
dwell on these kind of arguments, when the very learned
Archbishop Ussher* has most fully demonstrated, from the
ancient monuments of the Church, that these angels were
not only bishops, but even archbishops ?

This is also farther proved from the catalogues of bishops
compiled by Eusebius bishop of Cesarea, by which we per-
ceive, at first sight, that the primitive Church acknowledged
no other form of government but the episcopal.

All this is most fully confirmed by St. Irenzeus, a person
of the greatest authority, and as ancient as the age next the
Apostles; for more than once he calls bishops the successors
of the Apostles, and he affirms that the Apostles constituted
bishops in the Churches, and then proceeds to enumerate
those bishops to us who sat in the see of Rome. “The Apo-

stles, therefore,” says he*, “founding and instructing the

Church, for the government of it committed the episcopacy
to Linus, and to him succeeded Anacletus, &c. And like-
wise Polycarp, who was not only taught by the Apostles,
and had conversed with many of those that had seen our
Lord, but was also by the Apostles constituted bishop in
Asia, in that Church which is at Smyrna,” &c. Here it is
to be observed that the Church of Smyrna is one of the
Asiatic Churches mentioned in the book of the Revelations,
nor is it unlikely that Polycarp himself was the angel of
that Church.

4 See his treatise de Jure Metropoli- Her., lib. iii. c. 3. [§ 3. p. 176.]

tano. [Episcoporum et Metropolita-
norum origo, pp. 20, sqq., ap. Usserii
opuscula duo, &c. Lat. Lond. 1688. ]

© Fundantes igitur et instruentes
beati apostoli ecclesiam, Lino episcopa-
tum administrande ecclesiz tradide-
runt... succedit autem ei Anacletus,
&c. [@euerAtooaytes obv Kad oikodouh-
TayTEs of wakdpiot GadoToAaL THY eKKAN-
ciav, Aww thy THs émioKom7]s AetToup-

ylav evexelpioay ... diadéxeTat SE abroy
’AveykAntos, k.T.A.]—S. Iren. cont.
HICKES.

Kt Polycarpus autem non solum ab
apostolis edoctus, et conversatus cum
multis ex iis qui Dominum nostrum
viderunt; sed etiam ab apostolis in
Asia, in ea que est Smyrnis ecclesia
constitutus episcopus, &c.

[al TloAvKapmos 5€ ov pdvov brd
amrooTéAwy wabntevbels, kal ovvavacTpa-~
pels moAAots Tots Thy XpioTby Ewpakd=
ov, AAG Kal brd arooTéAwy KaTAaCcTA-
Gels cis Thy “Aclay, ev th ev Sudbpyn ex=
KAnola, émtokomos, K.T.A, ibid., § 4. |

HUGHES

DISSERT. II,

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

330 Testimony of Tertullian.

Next to St. Irenzeus I will produce Tertullian, who in his
book de Prescriptione Hereticorum, affords us a most full
testimony. ‘“ Let them shew, therefore,” says he‘, “the ori-
ginals of their Churches; let them run over the order of
their bishops, descending from the beginning through their
successions in such manner as that the first bishop had some
of the Apostles or apostolical men (who yet had conversed
with the Apostles) for his author or predecessor: for by
this means the apostolic Churches deduce their originals, as
the Church of Smyrna recurs to Polycarp placed there by
St. John, as likewise Clement bishop of Rome was ordained
by St. Peter: and in the same manner as the other Churches
exhibit those who were constituted bishops by the Apostles,
and are therefore shoots from the apostolic stock, so let the
heretics invent any thing like this.”

From this most noble testimony of Tertullian we under-
stand, 1. That the episcopal government did every where
prevail in Tertullian’s time. 2. That the first bishops were
appointed by the Apostles. ‘ Let the heretics,” says Tertul-
lian, “invent any thing like this;” and I say the same of the
Presbyterians.

To all this it were easy, if that were my present purpose,
to add a long enumeration of bishops whom the Apostles
themselves instituted, as we find them in Eusebius, Ori-
gen, Theodoret, and other authors of good credit. But
he that desires more instances may read Dr. Taylor con-
cerning episcopacy, sect. 18%, where he will find great plenty
of them.

The sum, therefore, of the whole argument is this: Timo-
thy and Titus were invested with episcopal authority, and
set over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete by St. Paul.
All the other Apostles did every where institute the same

f Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum Joanne collocatum refert: sicut Ro-

suarum, eyolvant ordinem episcopo-
rum suorum, ita per suecessiones ab
initio decurrentem, ut primus ille epi-
scopus aliquem ex apostolis vel aposto-
licis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis
perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et
antecessorem: hoc enim modo ecclesiz
apostolic census suos deferunt; sicut
Smyrnzorum ecclesia Polyearpum ab

manorum Clementem a Petro ordina-
tum itidem: perinde utique et ceterze
exhibent, quos ab apostolis in episco-
patum constitutos apostolici seminis
traduces habeant: confingant tale ali-
quid heretici.—[Tertull. de Przser.
Heret., c. xxxii. Op., p. 213, B.]

& Works, vol. vii. pp. 72, sqq. ed.
Heber. ]

Episcopacy of perpetual obligation. 331

form of government. It is abundantly manifest that bishops
presided in all Churches whatsoever, the least monuments of
which have escaped the injuries of time and come to our
hands. Nor is there to be found so much as one instance,
so much as one example of any Church for the three first
centuries, which owned any other form of government.
From all these considerations laid together, I think it clearly
and perspicuously follows, that bishops were instituted by
the Apostles for the perpetual government of the Christian
Church.

But they are wont to urge yet farther that nothing can
be founded by divine right but what may be most certainly
known to have come from God, with a design to oblige
perpetually. But it is, say they, by no means manifest
from the practice of the Apostles, to which you appeal, that
this form of Church government was instituted by God with
such a design of perpetual obligation. The practice of the
Apostles shews indeed sufficiently that this form of govern-
ment is safe and convenient enough, and not unacceptable
to God; but, say they, it by no means proves that this form
of government is perpetual; it does not by any means shew
that it is unlawful, that it is a crime, to change this form in
compliance with the exigence of times, and to substitute
another in the reom of it.

To this objection, which is plausible indeed as well as
common, I answer:

First, granting that the episcopal form of government was
founded by the Apostles themselves, and has been confirmed
by the whole Catholic Church, by a continual succession
down to this very time, it seems from hence to be very cre-
dible that it was the intention of the Apostles that this form
of government should remain for ever. That the episcopal
form is safe our adversaries freely own, but no man living
will ever be able to prove that it is safe to alter this form.
In a matter of so great importance wise men will always
follow that which is certain, and has been confirmed by pri-
mitive antiquity, and will most carefully avoid that which is
uncertain and inconsiderate, and which may possibly prove
to be against the intent of the apostolic institutions.

Secondly, the very same unquestionable evidences that

HUGHES
DISSERT. IT.

332 Proofs from St. Ignatius of the existence

APPENDIX, prove episcopacy to have been constituted by the Apostles,

NO. VIII.

do also prove that it was constituted with an intention of
obliging perpetually: that, if I am not mistaken, is abun-
dantly manifest from St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, and the rest
of the fathers, who often inculcate the necessity of episco-
pacy. It will be sufficient to observe that the very definition
of the Church given by the primitive fathers did always com-
prehend this form of government. St. Ignatius says", “ With-
out these” (he speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons) “ it
is not called a Church.” And St. Cyprian, “They are the
Church,” says he’, “the people united to the bishop, and the
flock adhering to its shepherd.” And again: “That is no
Church which has not bishops.” And again: “In like
manner also the Church, consisting of many degrees, ends
in deacons, presbyters, and bishops.” I conclude, there-
fore, that the Apostles founded episcopacy with an inten-
tion that it should oblige perpetually.

What has been hitherto said in this important controversy
does in my opinion abundantly suffice to maintain episco-
pacy against all the calumnies of innovators. But that
nothing may be wanting which can be desired to confirm a
matter of this great moment, I will produce some new proofs
from St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian.

St. Ignatius flourished in the beginning of the second
century, almost contemporary to St. John himself; and he
must be the vainest of all men living that can doubt but he
is an unquestionable evidence of the apostolic institutions.
Indeed, if we had no other but St. Ignatius, he has given
such ample testimony to episcopacy, that the cause of the
equality of the clergy must come to nothing. Our adver-
saries have never been able to invent any thing (as fruitfal
as we may allow their imaginations to have been in this
kind) that could defeat his authority. As for such as bab-
ble I know not what concerning the beginnings of Anti-

h xwpls tobrev éxxAnota ov KaAeirar ... Similiter et ecclesia multis gradi-
—S. Ignat. Ep. ad Trall., [c. 3. Patr. bus consistens ad extremum diaconis,
Apost., tom. ii. p. 22.) presbyteris, episcopis finitur. [The

1 Illi sunt ecclesia, plebs sacerdoti words ‘‘et alibi’? ‘and again’’ are

adunata, et pastori suo grex adherens. added by the translator, the words ap-
—(S. Cypr. Epist. lxix. ad Florentium parently quoted have not been found
Pupianum. Op.,p.123.] et alibi: Eccle- in St. Cyprian. ]

Sla non est que non habet sacerdotes

and powers of the episcopate. 333

christ, and a certain universal corruption, I can think them
only fit for bedlam.

1. From every one of the Epistles of this most excellent
writer it is as clear as the sun, that, at that time, the three
orders of bishops, priests, and deacons prevailed. From
whence, I beseech you, was this sudden and great change,
if it was the intention of the Apostles that all the authority
of the Church should reside in an assembly of presbyters?
These are nothing but the dreams of madmen and the im-
pertinencies of mere triflers.

2. It appears from these Epistles that nothing relating to
the Church ought to be done without the permission of the
bishop. Without the bishop’s leave the presbyters could
neither consecrate the Eucharist, nor baptize, nor celebrate
the agape or love-feast*.

3. The most holy martyr exhorts the Ephesians! “not to
resist the bishop, that they may be subject to God.” And
a little after: “It is manifest, therefore, that we ought to
regard the bishop as the Lord Himself.”

4. In his third Epistle, which was written to the Magne-
sians, he admonishes them to yield the highest reverence to
the bishop, because the reverence which was paid to the
bishop was understood to be given not to him, but to God
the Father. He that imposeth upon the bishop, says he™,
“does not despise him that is visible, but Him that is in-
visible.” Nay, the most holy man goes farther, and being
inflamed with an heavenly ardour, affirms that they are by
no means true Christians who dare attempt any thing with-
out the bishop. “Such (says he", as dare do any thing
without the bishop’s allowance) do not seem to me to be
conscientious persons, because they do not assemble autho-
ritatively according to the commandment.” Now by cata
evTornv, “according to the commandment,” St. Ignatius
means according to the apostolic institutions; for the Apo-

k See S. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. [e. &
Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 36; quoted
above, vol. ii. p. 296. ]

1 grovddcwpev obv ph avtitdcocec Oa
76 emokdry, va Guev Ocod broTaccbpe-
vot.—Id. Ep. ad Ephes. [c. 5. p. 13. | rv
odv enlokomoy diAov, OTL ws avToY Toy
Kiptov 5? rpoo BAerewv.—| Id., ib., c. 6. ]

™ ere) ovx Ott Tov emloKomoy TOUTOY
tov Bremdéuevoy TAaVG Tis, GAAQ TY
adparov mapadoyiferat.—Id. Ep. ad
Magnes., [c. 3. ibid., p. 18.]

1 of ToL1ovToL SE OvK EVTVVYELONTOL Mor
elvat patvovta, dia Td wy BeBalws Kara
evToAnv cvvabpoiferOa.—| Id., ibid., c.
4,]

HUGHES
DISSERT. I.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII.

334 Ancient form of the Catholic Church.

stles had so regularly disposed matters that nothing should
be done without the bishop, to the end that the unity of the
Church might suffer no damage.

These and the like passages do every where occur in the
writings of this most blessed martyr, and are to be found in
every epistle and in every page. Now let us pause a while
here, and contemplate the most ancient form of the Catholic
Church. Hitherto we see the Christian Church chaste,
modest, and uncorrupted, just now formed and modelled
by the greatest masters, the Apostles themselves. In this
Church, which no man will deny to be truly apostolic, we
have deacons, priests, and bishops. That the centre of
unity was placed in the bishop is confirmed by a thousand
testimonies. Nay, without the bishop, in the judgment of
St. Ignatius, the Church itself cannot subsist. What
greater privileges, I beseech you, than these, which are so
extraordinary, do our bishops either enjoy or desire?
Whence is it, therefore, that they are persecuted by the
schismatics with so inveterate an hatred? Whence is it
that they are accused of tyranny, popery, and whatever
worse even than popery itself the fanatics can invent? To
wit, this is our fault, this our crime, which no atonement
can expiate, that we have closely followed St. Ignatius and
the Apostles themselves; and that with the greatest con-
stancy we maintain and defend the primitive form of Church
government. This has ever afflicted our tribe of innovators,
who have nothing more at heart than to overturn all things,
to contemn ecclesiastical traditions, to pervert the holy
Scriptures with their foolish and senseless comments, and
with their most absurd reformations both to deform and
to destroy the Christian Church itself. But enough of these
men. Let us shake hands with them and their party.

From St. Ignatius we proceed to St. Cyprian, a wonderful
great man, and an egregious assertor of the authority of the
Church. In his incomparable Epistles we meet with a great
many passages relating to the discipline of the Church,
which do very well deserve to be taken notice of. With
regard to episcopacy these following particulars are most
observable.

1. That in the Church of Carthage there were many pres-

335

byters. See his fifth Epistle® and his thirty-fifth?, wherein
he acquaints his clergy that Numidicus, for his extraordi-
nary fortitude and constancy of mind, was consecrated a
priest, and advises them to add him to the number of the
presbyters of Carthage.

2. That both the presbyters and the whole Church were
under the government of St. Cyprian. In his tenth Epistle
he reproves the presbyters after this manner4: “ For what
danger ought we not to apprehend from such an offence
against the Lord, when some of the presbyters, unmindful
both of the Gospel and of their station; nay, and thinking
neither of the judgment of the Lord hereafter, nor of the
bishop that is now set over them, do what was never in the
least done before under my predecessors, with the reproach
and contempt of their superior challenge all to themselves ?”
See also his twenty-first’, twenty-second’, twenty-fifth‘, thir-
tieth", thirty-fourth*, and thirty-ninth’ Epistles (according
to Pamelius’ order.)

3. That St. Cyprian himself was fully persuaded that the
power of governing the Church was committed to him, not
by the people, but by God Himself. For thus he speaks in
his Epistle concerning the lapsed’: ‘Our Lord, whose pre-
cepts we ought to observe and revere, ordering the honour
of the bishop, and the constitution of His Church, speaks in
the Gospel, and says to St. Peter, ‘I say unto thee that thou

Proofs from St. Cyprian.

° [S. Cyprian. Epist. iv. (v. ed. Pa-
mel.) ad Presbyteros et Diaconos (Eccl.
Carth.) Op., p. 9.]

P [Id. Epist. xxxv. ad Clerum et
plebem (Carthag.) de Numidico ordi-
nato presbytero. Ibid., p. 48. ]

4 Quod enim non periculum metu-
ere debemus de offensa Domini, quando
aliqui de presbyteris, nec evangelii, nec
loci sui memores, sed neque futurum
Domini judicium, neque nunc sibi pre-
positum episcopum cogitantes, quod
nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus
factum est, cum contumelia et con-
temptu prepositi totum sibi vindicent.
—(Epist. ix. (x. ed. Pamel.) ad Clerum
de quibusdam presbyteris qui temere
pacem lapsis dederunt, p. 18. ed. Ben. |

8 { Lucianus Celerino respondet, ibid.,
Epist. xxi. (xxii, ed. Pamel.) p. 30,]

t (S. Cypr. Epist. xxv. ad Moysen
et Maximum et ceteros confessores,
ibid., p. 34. ]

u [Presbyteri et Diaconi Rome
consistentes ad Cyprian. ap. S. Cypr.
Epist. xxx. ibid., p. 41. ]

x [S. Cypr. Epist. xxxiv. ad clerum
et plebem de Celerino lectore ordinato,
ibid., p. 47. ]

Y [Caldenii, Herculani, et cztero-
rum epistola ad Cyprianum de ab-
stento Felicissimo cum suis. ap. S.
Cypr. Epist. xxxix. ibid., p. 52.]

Dominus noster, cujus pracepta et
monita observare (et metuere ed. Oxon.)
debemus, episcopi honorem, et ecclesize
suze rationem disponens, in evangelio
loquitur et dicit Petro, Ego tibi dico,
quia tu es Petrus, et super istam Pe-
tram edificabo ecclesiam meam, et por-
tee inferorum non vincent eam, et tibi
dabo clayes regni ccelorum, et que

HUGHES
DISSERT, II.

APPENDIX.

NO, VIII.

336 Episcopacy universal in the time of St. Cyprian.

art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatso-
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.’ From thence, through the vicissitudes of times and
successions, the ordination of bishops and the government
of the Church is derived, so as that the Church is consti-
tuted upon bishops, and every act of the Church is regulated
by the same superiors. Since this, therefore, is founded
by the divine law, I wonder that some with an audacious
rashness would so write to me as to draw up letters in the
name of the Church, when the Church is constituted upon
the bishop and clergy, and all such as stand fast in the
faith.”

From all this it does most evidently follow that episcopacy
prevailed every where in the time of St. Cyprian, and that it
did so prevail as an institution of Jesus Christ Himself.
Nay, if we believe the most holy martyr, the Church is so
constituted upon the bishops, that if you take away episco-
pacy you cannot so much as conceive a Church. This was
the judgment of pious and uncorrupt antiquity, to whose
opinion in this and all other controversies I most religiously
profess myself to subscribe. From these passages we like-
wise understand that St. Cyprian’s episcopacy was diocesan
episcopacy, viz., such an episcopacy as contains many assem-
bhes or congregations under it. But as to that congrega-
tional episcopacy which Baxter*, and after him Clarkson»,
took so much pains to establish, there does not any where
appear the least trace or footstep of it, eitherin St. Cyprian
or in all antiquity. But believe me it is so senseless and
foolish an invention, so foreign to all, both reason and ex-

ligaveris super terram, erunt ligata et nomine literas facerent; quando eccle-
in ceelis, et quecunque solveris super sia in episcopo et clero, et in omnibus
terram, erunt scluta et in ceelis. Inde stantibus sit constituta.—Id. Epist.
per temporum et successionum vices, xxvii. [ad Lapsos, p. 37.]

episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiz ratio 4 [See A Treatise of Episcopy, &c.,
decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos by Richard Baxter. Lond. 1681.]
constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiz > [Primitive Episcopacy stated and

per eosdem przpositos gubernetur. cleared, from the Holy Scriptures and
Cum hoc itaque divina lege fundatum ancient records, by the late David Clark-
sit, miror quosdam audaci temeritate son. Lond. 1688. ]

sic mihi scribere voluisse, ut ecclesize

In whom is the power of ordination vested ? 337

ample, that I am often used to wonder with myself how it
could ever get even into Baxter’s head.

Thus I have abundantly proved that the Apostles insti-
tuted bishops with an authority over presbyters for the per-
petual government of the Church. The bounds of this dis-
course will by no means admit our descending to the fathers
of the fourth century, a great army of most learned men,
and a vast crowd of witnesses for episcopacy.

ORDINATION BELONGS ONLY TO BISHOPS.

I would not be so understood as if I maintained that pres-
byters were never joined with bishops in ordinations, nor
ever laid hands with them upon the heads of such as were to
be ordained. I only mean that ordinations cannot be made
without a bishop, and that all ordinations by presbyters, and

HUGHES
DISSERT. II.

much more by laics, are invalid and null. Nay, I assert that -

the presence of presbyters is by no means necessary to ordi-
nations, but that they may be duly celebrated by the bishop
alone. Having thus explained my opinion, I shall confirm
it by these following arguments.

St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans says, “ How shall
they preach except they be sent®?’” So that in the Apo-
stle’s judgment no man can lawfully preach the Gospel, or
perform any sacred function, but he that is sent by God, but
he to whom God has committed the power of preaching the
word. But since, now that miracles have been long ceased,
we can have recourse only to ordinary means, it is a great
question in debate among Christians what is the subject of
this power, I mean of ordination, viz., who they are to whom
the power of consecrating others for the ministry is commit-
ted; a question indeed of the greatest moment, and to the
discussion of which we ought seriously to apply ourselves.
I maintain, therefore, that this power of ordaining is placed
only in the bishops, and am convinced of this both by the
testimonies of holy Scripture, and by the unanimous consent
of the first and purest ages of the Church.

I. Though you read over the New Testament never so
often, you will find that none but the Apostles ordained

APPENDIX,
NO. VIII.

2 Tim. 1. 6.

338 The power of ordination in the Apostolic age.

ecclesiastics. St. James is set over the Church of Jerusalem
by the Apostles. St. Paul and St. Barnabas, both of them
Apostles, consecrate presbyters*. As to the argument drawn
from “the laying on of the hands of the presbytery®,” which
the Presbyterians produce against us, not without great
triumph, many things may be answered to it. It may be
enough in this place to observe only, that the second Epistle
to Timothy informs us that St. Paul himself also laid his
own hands upon Timothy. But what countenance is given
by these Epistles to the cause of the equality of the clergy I
am not able to see. It is proved indeed that the presbyters
did, together with the Apostles, lay their hands upon the
heads of the candidates. But I desire to know whether from
this place it can ever be proved that the presbyters did at
any time ordain without the Apostles or without bishops.
No such matter. It is most certain that the imposition of
hands, mentioned Acts xiii. 3, relates to a particular bene-
diction. St. Paul committed a power of ordaining to Timo-
thy and Titus, when he made them bishops of the Churches
of Ephesus and of Crete. And indeed from these Epistles it
may be gathered, not without the highest probability, that
the presbyters of the second order did never in the Apostles’
times obtain a power of ordaining. It cannot be doubted
but that many presbyters were constituted by St. Paul in
the Church of Crete; yet Titus is sent thither with a pecu-
liar power of ordaining. Now from this it seems to follow
that a power of ordaining was never committed to the pres-
byters of the second order. But to despatch this matter in
a few words: the holy Scriptures do not afford the least
argument by which it can be proved that presbyters either
ordained, or received a power of ordaining from the Apo-
stles. We read in the New Testament of no man that was
ordained but by the Apostles themselves, who without doubt
were superior to the presbyters. St. Paul set single persons
over Churches, with a peculiar authority of ordination. Let
those that are impartial judges say whether the opinion of
such as are for episcopacy be not both safer and wiser which
declares for retaining that method of ordaining which the

* [xetporovicavres abrots mpeaButé- © wera. emibécews TOY XEIPGV TOV TpET-
pous.] Acts xiv. 25, Burepiov. J Tim. iv. 14.

The testimony of the Primitive Church. 339

holy Scriptures, if they do not command, do at least not
obscurely describe and commend to us.

II. But that we may the more perfectly understand the
sense of the holy Scriptures concerning this controversy, I
am next, according to my proposed method, to produce the
testimonies of the primitive Church, backed with which we
need not fear asserting that lawful ordinations can be de-
rived only from bishops. And indeed if I can clearly prove
that the primitive Church acknowledged no ordinations but
such as were episcopal, it will be easy for any one that has
but common sense to collect that that was the sense of the
Apostles who founded the Christian society ; and that that
was also the meaning of all those passages of holy Scripture
which plainly declare that ecclesiastics were ordained only
by the Apostles; and that a power of ordaining was in a
peculiar manner entrusted with Timothy and Titus; and of
those which attest that if such are promoted to the sacred
dignity of the priesthood as are not worthy nor fit for it the
fault is in the bishops alone, and the bishops alone are to be
blamed for it. This article concerning ordination comprises
in itself alone almost all the controversies concerning the
authority of bishops. If they with whom we have to do
would at least grant us this, that ordinations ought to be
had from none but bishops, we should very easily agree
about other controversies which are of much less moment.
In this matter we utterly disagree with the Presbyterians.
We cannot allow the ordinations of presbyters; we cannot
but reject them as rash, vain, and null. Nor have the
Presbyterians any just cause of complaining that we treat
them more harshly than what becomes Christians, since as
they pretend they are joined with us in the same bond of
faith and charity. But we are forbid to deal more mildly
in a matter of so much importance by the sacred oracles,
which seem to have committed this power of ordination only
to the Apostles and their successors. We are forbid this by
the constant opinion of the Catholic Church, whose autho-
rity, next to that of the holy Scriptures, ever has been, and
ever must be regarded by us, as of very great weight. And
indeed, unless I am very much mistaken, the Catholic Church
affords us such full evidence in this behalf, so perfect and

HUGHES
DISSERT, LU.

340 Ordination by Bishops alone admitted in the

arPenvix. complete in every part, that nothing farther can be desired
NO. VIII. ° . .

———— even by the most obstinate of our adversaries. Now to demon-
strate this with all the clearness possible, I will undertake to
prove these three propositions :

Ist. That the primitive Church admitted of no ordinations
but such as were administered by bishops :

2ndly. That all the holy fathers to a man, who speak of
ordination, do so speak of it as of a power appropriated only
to bishops.

drdly. That ordinations attempted by the insolent teme-
rity of presbyters were always invalid upon that very ac-
count, that they were administered by presbyters, who have
not the least authority in this matter.

I. In order to prove my first proposition beyond all -dis-
pute I could produce all the histories of the Church, all the
epistles of the holy Fathers, and in fine all the councils, as
evidence in this behalf. Wherever we read of the ordina-
tion either of a bishop or of a presbyter, we also read that it
was administered by a bishop. The second canon (of those
which are called apostolical, and which, without all doubt,
do testify the usages of the second and third centuries‘)
enjoins, “that a presbyter be ordained by one bishop.” And
who ever saw a canon, which I do not say confirms, but so
much as intimates ordinations by presbyters? But let us
reflect a little upon the two first canons; they are expressed
thus: ‘Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops,
and a presbyter by one bishops.” From these two canons
taken together I argue, 1st. That the ordination of bishops
is distinct and separate from the ordination of presbyters; I
mean that by which they are made presbyters. 2ndly. That
a presbyter cannot be made a bishop without a new ordina-
tion, different from the former by which he was made a pres-
byter. From hence also I think it follows that Blondel’s zpa-
toxaGedpia, or first place among the presbyters, which that
learned man endeavours with so much pains to make good,
can by no means be confirmed by the most ancient monu-
ments of the Catholic Church. And indeed it is well worth

* [See Beveridge, Codex Canonum ap. Concilia, tom. i. col. 25, A.] mpeo-
Vindicatus. ed. Oxon. 1848.] Burepos ird évds emioxdmou [ xetpotovel-

: emiokomos tmd émiokdmayv xeipoto- Ow, Ka} diakovos, ka) of Aowrol KAnpiKol.
veloOw duo 4% tpidy.—[Can. Apost. i. —Can. ii. ibid.]

Primitive Church. Objections of Blondel. 841

observing that Salmasius", Blondel‘, and Dallé*, that trium- avenes
virate of enemies to the episcopal order, did all own that the ee
power of ordaining was appropriated to bishops only, as soon
as the orders of bishop and priest began to be distinguished.
Since, therefore, it has been sufficiently proved that these
orders were always distinct, from the very times of the Apo-
stles, it will follow from that concession of theirs that the
_ power of ordaining did always belong to the bishops only.

But that I may omit nothing which may seem to conduce
to the farther illustration of this matter, I will thoroughly
consider all the arguments that are usually brought for the
ordinations of presbyters. And since David Blondel does,
both in learning and judgment, and great reading, far ex-
ceed all the rest of our adversaries, I will sum up with the
utmost fidelity all that even Blondel can suspect makes
against us. All which that learned man has been able to
collect concerning ordinations I have carefully read over
more than once, and it may be all reduced to these five
heads :

1st. He maintains! that the presbyters of the Church of
Alexandria, from the time of St. Mark the Evangelist down
to that of the patriarch Heracleas, (that is, from the year of
our Lord 61 to the year 264,) “did name their bishops at
their own discretion, and were both the electors and or-
dainers, and enthronizers of their own bishop.”

2ndly. He expects great service in this cause from the
chorepiscopi™, who being, he says, no more than mere pres-
byters, are frequently read to have ordained presbyters and
deacons.

3rdly. He asserts that in the Gothic Churches, “for the
space of almost seventy years, from about the year of our
Lord 260 to the year 327, the power of ordination and juris-
diction was in the hands of the presbyters".”

h [ Apparatus ad libros Cl. Salmasii
de Primatu Pape, pars i. p. 66. Lugd.
Bat. 1645.]

+ [ Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi
de episcopis et presbyteris auctore Da-
vide Blondello, sect. iii. § x. p. 157.
Amst. 1646. ]

k [ Dalleus de Psendepigraphis A po-
stolicis, lib. i. p. 121. lib. ii, p. 359.
Hardery. 1653. }

! [Presbyteros episcopum pro arbi-
trio nominasse ... eosdem ut electores,
sic ordinatores et évOpovioras prepositi
sui fuisse.—Blondel, ibid., pp. 310,
sqq. et Prafatio ad Ecclesiarum Rec-
tores, pp. 17, sqq- |

m (Id., ibid., de Chorepiscoporum
munere, pp. 93, sqq. |

" (Id., ibid., pp. 313, 314. See be-
low, p. 345. ]

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

B42 The alleged case of presbyters ordaining in the

4thly. He borrows his next argument from Cassian, who
relates “that the abbot Daniel was advanced to the dignity
of presbyter by Paphnutius a presbyter®.”

5thly. He concludes all with a famous passage of St. Leo
concerning the ordinations of pseudo-bishops, whom Blondel,
honest man, dreamed to have been mere presbyters?.

These are all the arguments for the ordinations of presby-
ters which this most zealous and learned adversary has with
the greatest industry, and with indefatigable pains, been able
to rake together, out of numerous libraries and scraps of
history, and in one word, out of the rubbish of all antiquity.
And to each of these arguments I shall endeavour to give a
short, clear, and solid answer.

Ist. The first instance is grounded upon the authority of
St. Jerome, and of Eutychius’s Annals. ‘The presbyters,”
says St. Jerome, ‘choosing one out of their own number, and
placing him in a higher degree, named him bishop.” Euty-
chius, as he is translated into Latin by Mr. Selden, affirms’,
“that St. Mark chose twelve presbyters with Hananias, to
the end that when the patriarchate should he vacant they
might out of those twelve presbyters make choice of one on
whose head the other eleven might lay their hands and con-
secrate him.”

I answer, that nothing can be gathered out of this passage
of St. Jerome that does any way come up to the purpose.

° Cass., col. iv. cap. 1. [ Blondel,
ibid., p. 8357. See below, p. 246. ]

P §. Leo, Epist. xcii. [The words
of St. Leo are; Nulla ratio sinit,
ut inter episcopos habeantur, qui nec
a clericis sunt electi, nec a plebibus
expetiti mec a provincialibus epi-
scopis cum metropolitani judicio con-
secrati; unde cum sepe questio de
male accepto honore nascatur, quis
ambigat nequaquam istis tribuendum
quod non docetur fuisse collatum? si
qui autem clerici ab istis pseudo-epi-
scopis in eis ecclesiis ordinati sunt, qui
ad proprios episcopos pertinebant, et
ordinatio eorum cum consensu et ju-
dicio przesidentium facta est, potest
rata haberi; ita ut in ipsis ecclesiis
perseverent. Aliter autem vana ha-
benda est ordinatio que nec loco fun-
data est, nec auctoritate munita.—S.
Leo. Epist. clxvii. (al. xev.) ad Rusti-

cum Narbonensem, Inquis. i. De pres-
bytero vel diacono qui se episcopos
esse mentiti sunt, et de his quos ipsi
clericos ordinarunt. Op., tom. i. col.
1420.—Blondel, ibid., p. 166. ]

4 [ Presbyteri (semper) unum ex se
electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum,
episcopum nominabant.—[S. Hieron.
Ep. exlvi. ad Evangelum. Op., tom. i.
col. ii. 1076, B; quoted fully above,
vol. i. p. 221, note p. Blondel, p. 310. |

r Constituit item Marcus evange-
lista duodecim presbyteros cum Hana-
nia... adeo ut cum vacaret patriarcha-
tus, eligerent unum e duodecim presby-
teris, cujus capiti reliqui undecim ma-
nus imponerent, eumque benedicerent
et patriarcham eum crearent.—[Eu-
tychii Origines, Selden, p. xxix. Lond.
1642; et ap. Seldeni Op., tom. ii. pars 1.
col. 421. See above, vol. i. ibid. Blon-
del, Prefat., p. 17, sqq.]

Church of Alexandria, examined.—Chorepiscopi. 343

He affirms, indeed, that a bishop “was chosen.and named
by the presbyters ;” but he says not one word of his ordina-
tion. And what is this to the case in hand? I assert, that
in the primitive Church presbyters never ordained. On the
contrary, Blondel shews out of St. Jerome that the presby-
ters of Alexandria “chose their bishop, placed him in a
higher degree, and named him;” as if it were the same
thing to choose and to ordain, or as if he that names has
also power to consecrate a bishop.

With respect to Eutychius, it will suffice to observe that
he was a little author of the tenth century, an ignorant, cre-
dulous, and foolish collector of all sorts of trivial worthless
matters, and is deservedly to be reckoned not among the
historians, but among the famous compilers of romances.
Besides all this, he contradicts both St. Athanasius and Eu-
sebius. Nay, to shew all the world how diligent and accu-
rate an historian he is, he affirms that the bishops assembled
at the council of Nice were in number 2048°. And yet Eu-
tychius himself can never be brought to give his suffrage for
the ordinations of presbyters. In his Chronicle he fre-
quently enough affirms that bishops are superior to presby-
ters by divine institution. But they who desire to see more
concerning the antiquities of Alexandria let them consult
Abrahamus Echellensis Maronitat, who has deservedly chas-
tised Selden for his wretched blunders with regard to the
Arabic tongue, and for his meanly serving a very bad hypo-
thesis.

2ndly. The next example is taken from the chorepiscopi,
to which I give this answer: the thirteenth canon of the
council of Ancyra provides" that the chorepiscopi shall not
ordain presbyters or deacons without the leave of those
bishops under whom they were. The tenth canon of the
council of Antioch has these words*: “It pleased the holy

* [Eutychii Annales, tom. i. p. 440.
Oxon. 1656. ]

* [See above, vol. i. p. 221, q.j

" [xwpemiokdnous uh ebelvar mperBu-
tépovs 7 diaxdvous xepotovety, GAG
pnd mpecButépovs méAcws, xwpls Tod
émitpamjva. ord Tod emoKdmov pera
Ypaupdrwy ev érépa mapoixta.—Conce.
Ancyr. (A.D.314.) Can. xiii. Concilia,
tom. i. col. 1492, A.]

x Ii qui sunt in vicis et regionibus,
vel qui chorepiscopi nominantur, etiam
si impositionem manuum episcoporum
acceperint, placnit sanctz synodo, ut
suum modum sciant, et sibi subjectas
ecclesias administrent, earumque cura
et moderamine contenti sint, &c. [rods
€v Tals kuais, 2) Tats xwpais, 7) Tods
KaAoumevous XwpeTiokdmous, ei Kal XEL-
pobectay elev emiokdrwy ciAnpdres edoke

HUGHES
DISSERT. II.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIIL.

344 The Canon of Antioch on Chorepiscopi explained.

council that they who are in villages or countries, or they
who are called chorepiscopi, although they have received
imposition of hands from bishops, should yet know their
own bounds, and govern the Churches put under them, and
content themselves with the government and care of
them,” &c.

“This Antiochian canon,” says Cabassutius’, “does far-
ther inform us in two particulars concerning chorepiscopi.
Ist. That they were not constituted in cities, but in villages
and lesser towns. 2ndly. That it may happen that chor-
episcopi be also dignified with the episcopal order; which
observation does admirably reconcile the Antiochian canon
with the decretal Epistle of Pope Damasus’*, which denies
that the chorepiscopi have any right of ordaining, because
they are no more than presbyters, and are by no means
bishops. For Damasus speaks of the power of a chorepi-
scopus strictly as he is such; yet he does not deny but it
may happen that a bishop undergo the care of a chorepisco-
pus, or a chorepiscopus be consecrated a bishop.” Thus far
Cabassutius. Therefore from this Antiochian canon it mani-
festly appears that the chorepiscopi were very often adorned
with the episcopal order. And why then might they not
ordain and consecrate both priests and deacons by imposi-
tion of hands? In vain, therefore, does Blondel bring into
the field against us these chorepiscopi, since they make
nothing for the ordinations of presbyters.

3rdly. Our next combatants are the Goths, whom he arms
out of Philostorgius: but we have little occasion to be

7h ayla cvvdde cidéva Ta éavTSv weérpa,
kal Sioikety Tas HToKEmevas avToIs eK-
kAnolas, kal TH TOvTwY apKetaOa ppov-
78: Kal endewovia, «.7.A.—Conce. Anti-
och., (A.D. 341.) Canon x. Concilia,
tom. ii. col. 589, C.]}

¥ [Hic porro canon Antiochenus duo
circa chorepiscopos edocet. Primo,
illos non in civitatibus, sed in vicis et
minoribus oppidis constitui tovs év tats
XGpais 7} Tals Kamas Kadouméevous Xwp-
emirkdrous. Secundo, posse contingere
ut episcopali quoque ordine prefulgeant
chorepiscopi. Quz observatio conciliat
canonem Antiochenum cum epistola de-
cretali pape Damasi, negante chorepis-
copos ullam habere ordinandi potesta-

tem, eo quod nihil amplius sint quam
presbyteri, nec ullatenus episcopi. Lo-
quitur namque Damasus de potestate
chorepiscopi przecise, qua talis est;
non tamen negat fieri posse, ut episco-
pus curam subeat chorepiscopi, aut
chorepiscopus in episcopum conse-
cretur.—Joannis Cabassutii Notitia
Ecclesiastica in Cone. Ancyran. Can.
xiii., p. 95. Lugd. 1690.]

+ [Et vacuum est et inane, quicquid
in predicto sacerdotii summo egerunt
ministerio. Quod ipsi iidem sint, qui
et presbyteri, sufficienter invenitur.—
Damasi Pape Epist. y. ap. Concilia,
tom. ii. col. 1026, A.]

The alleged case of the Goths examined. 345

afraid even of the Goths. Concerning the Gothic regions
converted to the Christian faith we may consult Philostor-
gius*, Sozomen», Socrates*, and Theodoret*. Blondel con-
tends® that these Gothic Churches, being converted to the
faith by the clergy that were in captivity, continued without
any bishop for seventy years; and that all power, as well of
jurisdiction as ordination, was in the hands of the presby-
ters till Ulphilas was created bishop by Eusebius. To this
I answer:

1. Granting that there were no bishops in the Gothic
Churches before Ulphilas, it does not by any means follow
from thence that presbyters ordained. It is possible that
all who were employed in the sacred function were ordained
by other bishops: nay, and that the thing was actually so
the principles of that age hardly leave us room to doubt.
See the story of Frumentius in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History‘.

2. We learn from Socrates’, Theodoret, and Sozomen,
that before Ulphilas, Theophilus governed the Churches of
the Goths. Nor yet will this furnish Blondel, as he flatters
himself, with any stronger argument against us: for neither
has he proved, nor will his followers ever be able to prove,
that this Theophilus was consecrated by presbyters.

3. Neither Socrates, nor Sozomen, nor Theodoret, nor
Philostorgius mentions so much as one deacon, much less
a priest, nor so much as one priest, much less a bishop, to

have been ordained by these Gothic presbyters.
therefore, is to be gathered from the Goths?
byters in the fourth century had a power of ordaining ?
This learned man wearies himself to no pur-
It is to no purpose that he endeavours with so much

no means.
pose.

a {Philostorgii Comp. Eccl. Hist.,
lib. ii. cap. 5. ap. Hist. Eccl., tom. iil.
p- 480; Blondel, pp. 313, 314. ]

6 Sozomeni Hist. Eccl., lib. vi. c. 36.
[Eccl. Hist., tom. ii. p. 271. ]

d Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., lib. iv. cap.
37. [ibid., tom. iii. p. 190. ]

© [ Utcunque sit, cum clerici captivi
Gothicas Ecclesias fundaverint, eas-
demque per annos fere septuaginta...
pleno jure administraverint; penes

HICKES,

What,

presbyteros ecclesiarum illarum rec-
tores universa ordinationum et juris-
dictionis potestas mansit, nec ullus (si
Philostorgium audiamus) fuit inter eos
ante Ulphilam przsul.— Blondel, ibid.,
p. 314.

f [See Ruffinus’ continuation of
Euseb., lib. x. cap. 9. Hist. Eccl.
Auctores, p. 225. Basil. 1528.]

& [Socratis Hist. Eccl., lib. ii. cap.
41, p. 157. The other historians are
added apparently by a misunderstand-
ing of Blondel’s words. ]

HUGHES

DISSERT, II.

That pres- -

346 The alleged ordination by Paphnutws.

aprenvix. subtlety, and with such an immense variety of learning, to

NO. VUE

defend a most senseless cause. The cause of the Presbyte-
rians is not capable of being defended.

Athly. But let us proceed to the abbot Daniel, ordained
by Paphnutius, a presbyter". In the first place I will pro-
duce the passage of Cassian. “He was preferred',” says
he, “to the office of a deacon by blessed Paphnutius, a pres-
byter of the same retirement, and that when he was inferior
in years to many. For the holy Paphnutius had so much
regard to his virtues as to hasten to make him equal to him-
self in the order of priesthood, whom he knew to be equal in
merits and grace; for not bearing that he should continue
any longer in an inferior ministry, and desiring to provide
himself a fit successor in his own lifetime, he advanced
him to the honour of presbyter.” From this passage, for-
sooth, it manifestly appears that the presbyter Paphnutius
consecrated Daniel a presbyter. I must own that my eyes
are too weak to discern any such consequence. Daniel “ was
preferred to the dignity of presbyter by Paphnutius,” there-
fore Paphnutius ordained him. I doubt this is no demon-
stration. Well, let us go on. But Paphnutius “advanced
him to the honour of presbyter.” What then? Did he
therefore consecrate him? O Blondel! I congratulate you
with that new logic of yours which has taught you to frame
such wonderful, such unusual, and such illogical conse-
quences. But to be serious. In the ecclesiastical writers
men are most frequently said to be preferred or advanced by
those who recommend or elect them. So that from this
kind of expressions it is in vain for any one to argue who
has a mind to persuade either himself or others. We are
also taught by the very rules of St. Benedict that the abbot
chooses out of his own order such as are worthy to perform
the priest’s office. The matter, therefore, at last comes to
this. Paphnutius being induced by Daniel’s virtues com-

h (Blondel, pp. 357, 358. |
* A beato Paphnutio solitudinis

etiam sacerdotii ordine festinaret: si-
quidem nequaquam ferens in inferiore

ejusdem presbytero, et quidem cum
multis junior esset ztate, ad diaconi
prelatus est officium. In tantum
enim beatus Paphnutius virtutibus ip-
sius adgaudebat, ut quem vite meritis
et gratia parem noverit, cozquare sibi

eum ministerio diutius immorari, op-
tansque sibimet successorem idoneum
providere, superstes eum _presbyterii
honore provexit.—Cassiani Collatio iv.
eap. 1. [Op., p. 250. Atrebat. 1628. |

The case of the Culdees. 347

mends him to the bishop, and the bishop makes him a pres-
byter.

5thly. It only remains that I say something of the pseudo-
bishops*, and to despatch the matter in few words I say
this ; that these pseudo-bishops were really bishops, honoured
with episcopal ordination, and were only called pseudo-
bishops because they were not bishops of that place, because
they had violated the canons, and because they had ordained
ecclesiastics contrary to the practice of the Church. Why
did not Blondel prove these pseudo-bishops to be mere pres-
byters? Nothing could have made more for his purpose.
But this learned man knew very well that he could never
be able to prove this: therefore, with a conscious silence,
he disingenuously concealed the senseless fallacy. What, I
beseech you, may be observed more frequently than that
those are called pseudo-bishops who are not canonically or-
dained, although by their own bishops, or who exercise their
episcopal power out of their own dioceses? This appears
very evidently from St. Cyprian alone’.

I had perfectly forgot the ridiculous story of the Culdees,
and the argument drawn from that story, which is no less
ridiculous. The Presbyterians are wonderfully fond of these
Culdees with their cowls, and none more than our Blondel.
And thus he speaks™: ‘That the first Church of the Scots
was in the same condition with the Goths is the opinion of
John Fordon and John Major, two writers of that cour-
ageous nation”.” Well, I grant that it is possible that those
courageous Scottish Churches were in the same condition
with the Churches of the Goths. But what follows from
hence? That presbyters had power to ordain? Nothing
less. Neither the Gothic presbyters nor the Scottish ever
ordained bishops or priests. Neither Fordon, nor Major,

n {Per sacerdotes et monachos sine
episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi.—For-
don. Scotichronicon, lib. iii. cap. 8.

k [See above, p. 342, note p. |
1 [See S. Cypr., Epist. lv. ad Cor-
nelium, Op., p. 79; quoted above, p.

207, note z. |

m [Pari cum Gothicis conditione
primam Scotorum ecclesiam fuisse
censent animose gentis illius que Al-
baniam Britannicam colonize Hiber-
nice jure in colit, scriptores Joannes
Fordonus ... Joannes Major, &c.—
Blondel, ibid., pp. 314, 315. |

Ante (Palladii) adventum habebant
Scoti fidei doctores ac Sacramentorum
ministratores presbyteros solummodo
vel monachos, ritum sequentes eccle-
siz primitive.—Johannes Major de
Gestis Scotorum, lib. ii. cap. 2. fol. 23, A.
Blondel, p. 315. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT. Il

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII.

348 The Fathers uniformly speak of ordination

nor Boéthius® says any thing of the ordination of presby-
ters.

It remains, therefore, a certain and unshaken truth that
no ordinations were admitted by the primitive Church but
such as were administered by bishops. I come next to my
second proposition, which is this :

II. That all the holy fathers to a man who speak of ordi-
nation do speak of it as of a power appropriated only to
bishops.

Thus St. Jerome declares in most express words: “ What,”
says he, “can a bishop do which a presbyter does not, ex-
cept ordination only??” Therefore in St. Jerome’s opinion
ordination does so properly belong to bishops that a presby-
ter dares by no means usurp it. Nor is there any reason
that with Blondel we should suppose4 that the holy father
had respect only to his own times and to the practice of the
Church in the fourth century. There is nothing that any
way upholds this supposition; for if St. Jerome himself had
known that presbyters, even in the most ancient times, had
ever exercised the power of ordaining, it is bardly credible
that he would have omitted that, when nothing could be
alleged more material to his purpose, which was to make
presbyters equal to bishops.

St. Chrysostom comments upon 1 Tim. iv. 14, in these
words: “He does not speak here of presbyters, but of
bishops, for the presbyters did not ordain the bishop*.”
Nothing can be more evident than that the holy father
spoke of ordinations administered in the times of the Apo-
stles. In the judgment, therefore, of St. Chrysostom, the
power of ordaining was appropriated to bishops in the very
age of the Apostles.

Hereto may be added the words of St. Epiphanius, speak-
ing concerning the Aérian heresy, which are very full to our
purpose. Aérius argues thus: “In what particular does a
bishop excel a presbyter? There is no difference between

° [Boethii Seotorum Hist., lib. vi. 4 [See Blondel, ibid., p. 311. ]
fol. 92. ed. Par. 1574. Blondel, p. 315. | © ov mepl mpeaButepwy pnalv evTavda,
P [Quid enim facit, excepta ordina- GAA& wep) emickdTwy* od yap 5} mpEo-

tone, episcopus, quod presbyter non Bvrepo Toy émicKkoroy éxeipoTévovy.—
faciat.—S. Hieron. Epist. exlvi. ad [S. Chrysost. in 1 Tim. Hom. xiii. § 1.
Evangelum, Op., tom. i. col. 1076 ] Op., tom. xi. p. 618, B.j

as appropriated to Bishops. The heresy of Aérius. 349

the one and the other, for they are both of the same order ;
both have the same honour and dignity. The bishop or-
dains, and so does the presbyter’,” &c. In the first place
St. Epiphanius calls this a “mad assertion’ of Aérius, and
the utmost degree of folly" to say that a bishop and a pres-
byter are equal; for every wise man,” says he, “ will easily
perceive that nothing is more foolish than to attempt to
make them equal.” And the most learned father proceeds
thus: “ And how is this possible? for the bishops’ order is
to propagate fathers, for it begets fathers to the Church ;
but the order of presbyters, unable to beget fathers, does by
the laver of regeneration beget children to the Church, but
neither fathers nor teachers. And how was it possible for
him to constitute a presbyter who had not received imposi-
tion of hands (and therewith authority) to ordain?” From
this passage many considerations do naturally arise that
yield a wonderful confirmation to my proposition, for from
hence it appears,

Ist. That Aérius was ranked among the heretics.

2ndly. That he was ranked among them for this very rea-
son, because he made presbyters equal to bishops. So also
St. Augustine, in his treatise concerning heretics, condemns
Aérius because he had asserted “that there ought to be no
difference made between a bishop and a presbyter *.”

drdly. That by the principles of the fourth century a pres-
byter, as such, cannot ordain.

Athly. That the reason why presbyters cannot ordain is,
because they have not received imposition of hands or power
to ordain.

5thly. From all which it likewise follows that to presby-

3 rl éorw enickomos tpds mpecBu-
Tepov; ovdey SiadAAdTTEL ovTOS TOUTOV"
pla ydp éortt Takis, kal pla, dno,
Tun, Kal ev aklwua. yxeupobeTte?, pyaly,
énickotos’ GAAG Kal 6 mpecBuUrepos,
k.T-A.—S. Epiphan. adv. Her., lib. iii.
[ Her. Ixxv. § 3. Op., tom.i. p. 906,
D.]

t Adyos waviHdns.—Id., ibid.

u «ad dtt wey abpociyns eat) Th Tay
euTAcwv, Tois TUVETLY KEKTNLEVOLS, TOU-
To OjAov' TO Aéeyelv, avToY emiaKoToOY,
Kal mperBvrepoy icoy eiva. Kal mas Ear aU
TovTO Suvarov; 7 pEeVv yap eat TaTepwy

yevyntixh Takis" maTepas yap yevva TH
exkAnola’ 7 d€ matepas wh Suvauévn
yevvay, 51% TIS TOV NovTpOD TAALyyeEveE-
clas Téexva yevya TH exKAnola, ov phy
marepas 7) SidacKkdAous* Kal was oidv Te
jv Tov mpeaBurepoy KabiorGy, mt) ExovTa
xetpobeciav Tov Xetpotoveiy.—| Id., ibid.,
§ 4. p. 908, A.

x [Dicebat (Aerius) presbyterum ab
episcopo nulla differentia debere dis-
cerni.—S. Aug. lib. de Heres. ad
Quodvultdeum, Heres. liii. Op., tom,
viii. col. 18, E.]

HUGHES
DISSERT. IL.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII.

350 Ordinations by presbyters always held to be invalid.

ters, as such, the holy Scriptures have not committed any
power of ordaining.

My second proposition does therefore hold good, viz., that
all the holy fathers to a man, who speak of ordination, do
speak of it as of a power appropriated only to bishops. I
proceed to the third, which is this:

III. That ordinations attempted by the insolent temerity
of presbyters were always invalid upon that very account,
that they were administered by presbyters, who have not the
least authority in this matter.

This proposition is abundantly demonstrated by the fa-
mous example of Ischyras, who was therefore replaced
among the laics, because he had been consecrated by Collu-
thus, an imaginary bishop. But because Blondel has taken
a great deal of pains to deprive us of this instance, it will be
necessary to enquire into it a little more particularly. I
shall therefore, in the first place, faithfully relate the whole
story of Ischyras from St. Athanasius, and afterwards con-
sider Blondel’s objections, on which he lays so much stress.
What St. Athanasius has written concerning the ordination
of Colluthus is in his Apology against the Arians. “ But be-
cause Colluthus,” says hey, “died a presbyter, both all his
ordinations were inauthoritative, and all that were ordained
by him, (and) in schism, were become laics again.” ... “ For
he was ordained by Colluthus, a presbyter that personated a
bishop, and was lately enjoined by Hosius in a general coun-
cil, and by the bishops there assembled, to demean himself
as a presbyter, such as he was before. In lke manner Ischy-
ras hiraself was reckoned a laic’”.”

From these words of St. Athanasius I collect,

1st. That Colluthus was a mere presbyter when he died.

2ndly. That for that reason all his ordinations were in-
valid, and all the persons ordained by him remanded among
the laics.

¥Y GAN bri KéAAovos mpeaBuvrepos
dv ererctryo«, kal maoa xElp avTod ye-
yovev &kupos, kal mavtes of map’ avTov
KaTacTavévres €y TH CxlcmaTi, Aatkol
yeyévaor.—S.Athanas. A pol. cont. Ari-
anos, § 12. Op., tom. i. p. 134, B, C.
Hughes read kat ev 76 oxlopart. |

* bmd yap KoAAovOou Tov mpeoButépov

gavtacbevros emiKoTny, Kal vorepov
tmd Kowhs cuvddov ‘Oclov kal Tay aby
aiTt@ emickdmav, Kedevobevtos mper-
Burépouv elvat, «abd Kal apdrepov RW,
KatecTddn....a@s Kal avtds “Ioxvpas
Aatkds &pOn.—[ Synod, Mareot. Epist.,
ap. S, Athanas., ibid., p. 193, A, B. ]

The case of Ischyras and Colluthus. 351

8rdly. That being but a presbyter he pretended to be a
bishop, but had never been dignified with the episcopal
order, and was only an imaginary and no real bishop, é¢av-
Tateto émicxoTy, that is, among his own friends and com-
panions he feigned himself a bishop, and gloried in it.

Athly. That it was decreed by Hosius and the council of
Alexandria that he should remain a presbyter, as he was be-
fore. Where it is to be most carefully observed, that Collu-
thus was not degraded from the episcopal order as one that
had truly received it, but only deprived of an imaginary
title, which he had insolently arrogated to himself. It was
decreed that he should remain a presbyter, because he was
never consecrated bishop, viz., by the imposition of bishops’
hands. From hence it is to me most evident that in the
judgment of the primitive Church the ordinations of pres-
byters were invalid and null for that very reason, because
they were administered by presbyters. The assertors of the
equality of the clergy shall never wrest from us this in-
stance, which is so full and clear against them. But let
us see what Blondel has been able to allege against most
evident history, a man indeed of very great lecrning, but
too much addicted to the faction of the Calvinists.

There are three things which this most learned adversary
produces to enervate the force of this example?, viz.,

Ist. That Colluthus was not a presbyter, but a bishop in
the Upper Cynus?, consecrated by Meletius.

2ndly. That he did not cease to be a bishop till he was
deposed¢ by Hosius and the synod of Alexandria‘.

drdly. That Ischyras was therefore replaced among the
laics, not because he had been ordained by a presbyter, but
because he had been ordained uncanonically by a bishop,
contrary to the canons and established usage of the Churche.

To these three objections I answer,

Ist. It appears from Alexander’s circular letter that there
was one Colluthus, a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria.
That this was the same with our Colluthus who ordained

* (Blondel, Apol., sect. iii. pp. 317, E. Blondel, p. 318.

q: ° { Blondel, ibid., p. 321. |

b KéAdAovbos ev TH vw Kivy. [This * [Id., ibid., p. 319.]

shops; ap. S. Athan., ibid.,§71, p.187, ibid., p. 325. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT, 13.

APPENDIX,

NO. VII.

352 Blondel’s objections on this case answered.

Ischyras is manifestly attested by St. Epiphanius‘, whose
authority Blondel does in vain endeavour to enervate. We
read that Coluthus was constituted a bishop in the Upper
Cynus, but not Colluthus’. Either Blondel is miserably
blind, or he imposes upon his followers what he sees and
knows to be false.

2ndly. It is as clear as the light from the very words of
St. Athanasius, that before the synod of Alexandria Collu-
thus was by no means a bishop; for pray let us reflect a
little: “by Colluthus, a presbyter, that persouated a bishop,
and lately by a general council",” &c. He that personated
a bishop was not a true and real, but only a fictitious and
imaginary bishop. Colluthus, even before the assembling of
the synod of Alexandria, did only personate a bishop, only
counterfeited and boasted himself to be a bishop, when he
was a mere presbyter. Therefore the Alexandrian synod did
not deprive him of the episcopal order, which he had never
received ; but openly pronounced that he was by no means
a bishop, that he was nothing more than a mere presbyter,
because he was never ordained by a bishop.

3rdly. From hence it naturally follows that Ischyras was
put back among the laics because he was consecrated by a
pseudo-bishop, (not only an uncanonical, but) a false and
fictitious bishop.

And having thus both confirmed and illustrated my three
propositions, I shall not fear boldly to assert that ordina-
tions belong only to bishops, and that ordinations adminis-
tered by mere presbyters are upon that very account void,
invalid, and null.

But before I conclude this dissertation it will not be either
unprofitable or foreign to my purpose to make some few ob-
servations concerning the order of deacons, for there are
some who dream that the deacon’s order is only a temporary
and civil office, by no means to be reckoned among such as
are ecclesiastical.

This, therefore, shall be my last proposition.

f [S. Epiphan. adv. Hereses, lib. ii. os ed. Ben., edd. priores KéAovOos. ]

Her. 69. § 2. Op., tom. i. p. 728, C, D, 4 KoAAovdou Tod mpecBuTepov, pavTa-
is the passage referred to, but it does @é€vtos émtxom}y, kal borepoy bmd Kow7}s
not affirm so much as is here stated. | cuvddou, K.T.A.; quoted above, p. 390.

8 KédAov@os non KéAdovbos. [KdéAAou- _ note z.]

The deacons not a civil or temporary order. 353

IV. The order of deacons instituted in the sixth of the
_ Acts is not civil and temporary, but is spiritual and perpetual.

1. The Apostles require: that the persons to be chosen to
this office should be “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,”
that is, that they should be endowed with extraordinary gifts
and well instructed in the holy Scriptures, viz., in the Old
Testament, especially in the prophecies, that they might be
able, as often as occasion should offer, to dispute with the
Jews, as St. Stephen did. Does not this seem to suppose
something more excellent than the office of a steward?
What, are extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and a full know-
ledge of God’s word requisite to the discharge of that office?
I am very much mistaken if an honest mind and a well
approved integrity be not abundantly sufficient for that
employment.

2. Deacons were instituted to “serve tables*,” and had
their name from thence. But “the tables of the disciples” (as
the great Bishop Pearson! rightly observes) “ were common
and sacred, that is, they celebrated the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper in common,” each contributing his symbol to
the “feast of charity.” It is very credible that these dea-
cons assisted the Apostles in the celebration of it, and distri-
buted the consecrated elements among the faithful. This is
most certain, that in the time of Justin Martyr that office
belonged to the deacons. “The president,” says he™, (or
bishop,) “having blessed or consecrated the bread and wine
and water, those that are by us called deacons distribute
them to every one present.”

3. They were ordained by imposition of hands of the Apo-
stles in the very same manner that priests and bishops are
ordained. But this ceremony, which is so solemn, would
certainly never have been used for the designation of a civil
and temporal’ office.

1688. Minor Theol. Works of Bishop

' rAfjpes mvedmaros aylov Kad go-

gtas. Acts vi. 3.

K G.axovety tpaméCas. Ibid., v. 2.

' Mensze enim discipulorum tune
temporis communes et sacre etiam
fuere: hoc est, in communi convictu
sacramentum eucharistiz celebrabant.
— Pearson. Lectiones in Act. Apost.,
Lect. iii. sect. vi. p. 53. [This refer-
ence is to Pearson’s Opera Posthuma,

HICKES, Z,

Pearson, vol. i. p. 346. Oxford, 1844. |
M edxapioThoavTos 5€ TOU TPOETTA@TOS
.. of kadotmevor map’ nuiv bidKovor 51-
déacw ExdoTw Tov TapdyTwY meTara~
Bely amd Tod evxapioTnOerTos eprov kal
otvov kal tdaros.—[S. Just. M. Apol. i.
c. 65. p. 88, A. See above, vol. ii. p. 106,

g-]

HUGHES
DISSERT, If,

{“ tempo-
rary.

APPENDIX,

NO, VII.

354 Testimonies of Scripture and Antiquity respecting deacons.

4. Add to all this, that soon after Stephen preached the
gospel, and Philip administered baptism to the eunuch.
These several particulars, as far as I can judge, do most
evidently denote an ecclesiastical office.

“They,” says the Apostle, “that have used the office of a
deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree",” that is,
a degree towards the order of presbyter; for that was the
custom of those ages, to choose deacons out of the best of the
Christian people, presbyters out of the best deacons, and out
of the best presbyters to elect presidents or bishops. In the
Clementine Constitutions there are prayers for a deacon, in
which are these words: “ Grant that he having administered
the office committed to him agreeably, constantly, unblame-
ably, and irreproveably, may be thought worthy of a greater
degree®.”

But besides all this, let us enquire what opinion concern-
ing this office was held by pious and uneorrupt antiquity.
That the holy Apostles did in all Churches, together with
bishops and presbyters, also constitute deacons, appears from
St. Clemens Romanus? and from Hermas Pastor’. But what
sentiments the primitive Church had concerning deacons
you will easily judge from the following citations out of the
holy fathers.

St. Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, exhorts the
deacons to behave themselves “ unblameably, as the deacons
or ministers of God in Christ, and not. of men*.”

St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Trallians, has these
words: ‘“ And deacons being the mystery (orrather minis-
ters of the mysteries) of Jesus Christ, ought by all means to
please all men, for they are not dispensers of meat and drink,
but ministers of the Church of God*.”

” of KaAGs Siakovncaytes Babudy Eav-
Tois KaAov Tepimo.ovyTat. 1 ‘Tim. iii, 13.

° Katatiwoov avtoy evapéotws det-
TOUpyncavTa Thy eyxepicbeioay avTe
diakoviay aTpémTws, GueuTTws, aveyKAT-
Tws, melCovTos akiwbjvat Babuod.—[ Im-
ploratio in ordinatione diaconi. ] Const.
Apost., lib. viii. ec. 18. [ap. Concilia,

Patr. Ap., tom. i. p. 171; quoted above,
p. 304, note b. ]

4 [{ Lapides quidem illi quadrati .. ii
sunt apostoli et episcopi, et doctores,
et ministri, &c.—S. Herme Past., lib.
i. Vis. ili. cap. 5. Patr. Apost., tom. i.
p- 80. The passage is quoted on this
subject by Bishop Pearson, in the place

tom. i. col. 489, A;] quoted by Gro-
tius in loc. [Grotii Annot. in 1 Tim,
iii. 13. Op., Theol., tom. iii. p. 968. et
ap. Crit. Sacr., tom. vii. col. 478. ]

P [S. Clem. R. Epist. i. c. 42. ap.

referred to in note 1. ]

v ds Ocod ev Xpior@ Siakovor, kal ovK
avOpamrwv.—[S. Polycarp. Ep. ad Phil.,
c. v. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 188.]

S Sef dt cal Tods diakdvous bvTas “UT

The Church is a society distinct from the State. 355

St. Cyprian speaks thus of deacons: “ But deacons ought "venes
to remember that the Lord chose Apostles, that is, bishops Se
and governors; but after the Lord’s ascension into heaven
the Apostles constituted deacons for themselves, to be at-
tendants upon them as bishops and upon the Church*.”
What does it signify to proceed further, and weary the
reader with a long enumeration of authors? From these
three most clear evidences of the truly apostolic traditions it
is abundantly manifest that deacons are not servants of
tables, (as some triflers among us assert,) but attendants of
the bishops and of the Church, and consequently are with
the bishops and the Church to continue unto the end.

DISSERTATION III.

THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY FROM THE TIMES OF CONSTANTINE HAS NEVER IN-
CORPORATED WITH THE CIVIL: BUY WITH RESPECT TO ALL ITS PURELY
SPIRITUAL POWERS HAS EVER REMAINED ENTIRE AND DISTINCT.

To any one that seriously considers the Christian religion
it will easily appear that there are two states of the Church
very different and distinct; one, when the powers of the
world did not as yet protect the Christian faith ; the other,
from the time that the Roman empire began openly to pro-
fess the name of Christ. In the former state, while persecu-
tion was still raging, the Church was administered by bishops
with the counsel of their presbyters; and for the more con-
venient government of it they made laws, and confirmed
them with the greatest and strongest sanction, viz., with
banishment from all sacred commerce, which they looked
upon as a great prejudice', (or kind of ruled case,) that pre- ' [«fore-
determined the future judgment". But when the most re-!"*#"* }
nowned emperor Constantine had submitted his victorious
eagles to the cross, and heartily professed the most pure

Thpiov "Incod Xpiorov kara wavta Tpd-
Tov wTacw apeokey* ov yap Bpwmarwy
Kal Tota eialy Sidkovol, GAN exkAnolas
Geo bwnpéra.—[ S. Ignat. Ep. ad Trall.
c. 2. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 22.] wuo-
Tnplwy legunt et interpolator, et vetus
interpres, quz forsan lectio preferenda
est. [See above, vol. ii. p. 255, note 1. ]

‘ Meminisse autem diaconi debent
quoniam apostolos, id est, episcopos et

prepositos Dominus elegit: diaconos

autem post ascensum Domini in ceelos |

apostoli sibi constituerunt episcopatus
sui et ecclesie ministros.—|S. Cypr.
Epist. Ixy. ad Rogatianum de diacono
qui contra episcopum contendit. Op.,
p- 113.]

* [Summum futuri judicii prajudi-
cium.—Tertull. Apol., cap. 28. Op., p.
31, A; quoted above, vol. i. p. 159. }

APPENDIX.

‘NO. VIII.

1 [In the
ninth chap-
ter of the
first book. ]

356 Selden derives the powers of the Church from

doctrine of Christ, a new face of things seemed to arise, and
from this new face of things we shall be apt to expect many,
and those considerable alterations. The emperor confirms
the ecclesiastical power with new laws and new authority,
and the Church yields to the emperor certain new and ex-
traordinary privileges. What therefore I assert is only this,
that by this alteration the Christian Church was by no means
blended and confounded with the secular authority, but with
regard to all its purely spiritual powers remained entire and
separate.

Mr. Selden in his ninth book! de Synedriis*, grants us,
that before the times of Constantine the Christian Church
was a certain fixed society, and exercised the power of ex-
communication. But then, honest man, he thinks all this is
to be derived, not from any divine right, nor from any pre-
cept of the Apostles, nor from the nature of the Christian
religion, but from I know not what compact, very obscure
and known but to few, viz., only to one or two of the tribe of
the critics. But how does it appear that any such compact
was ever made? It appears (if we believe Mr. Selden’) as
clear as the sun from that famous Epistle of Pliny to the
Emperor Trajan, in which Pliny writes thus of the Chris-
tians: “That they were wont to bind themselves with an
oath not to commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, not to
break their word, nor deny what was entrusted with them,
when it should be called for?.”” From this passage the
learned man does with great subtlety gather that the Chris-
tian society is owing to a certain private compact, because
the Christians bound themselves with an oath not to violate
the precepts of their Saviour. This reasoning to men of
small and moderate understanding may seem perhaps new
and very admirable, but it is thus that great wits are some-
times pleased egregiously to trifle. For this invention of
Mr. Selden’s, raised with so much zeal and labour, falls and
vanishes at one blow, if we only call to mind that all the
holy fathers, without exception, who make mention of this

* [De Synedriis Veterum Ebre- mento... obstringere... ne furta, ne
orum, lib. i. c. 9. Seldeni Op., tom.i. Jlatrocinia, ne adulteria committerent,
pp. 839, 940. ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum ap-

¥ [Id., ibid., c. viii. p. 907.] pellati abnegarent.—Plinii Epist., lib.

7 Quod essent soliti. .. se sacra- x. Ep. 96. (al. 97.)

voluntary compact, and from the civil government. 357

society, do not intimate that it arose from any compact, but
maintain that it was delivered down by the Apostles them-
selves, and founded by the very precepts of our Saviour.
The whole controversy therefore comes to this: whether
more regard is to be had to Mr. Selden, a man indeed of
very great learning, but a most deadly enemy to the clergy,
than to the constant opinion of the primitive Church. And
yet from this unlearned and rash hypothesis Mr. Selden
proceeds, after his usual manner, to argue? that all this
power, as soon as Constantine had embraced the Christian
faith, was by a certain natural right devolved upon the civil
government, insomuch that all ecclesiastical powers whatso-
ever, from the reign of Constantine down to our times, are
not in his opinion to be derived from God, nor from a spiri-
tual authority founded by Jesus Christ, but from the king,
and from the senate, and from the people. This is that im-
pious and pestilent opinion which, alas! has ravaged far and
wide, and which I shall now undertake to overthrow.

I assert, therefore, against Mr. Selden, and all the other
authors of that stamp, that the Christian society, from the
times of Constantine, was not mixed with the civil. I assert
that all those powers which Jesus Christ committed to the
governors of His Church do still belong to the Church of
Christ, so that no laws nor edicts whatsoever can either abo-
lish them or deprive the clergy of them.

And to make good this assertion I shall take the following
method. I shall prove it,

Ist. From the nature itself of the Christian society.

2ndly. From the very concessions of the emperors.

3rdly. From various contentions that have happened be-
tween the emperors and the bishops.

I. First, therefore, it is abundantly manifest from the
very nature of the Christian society, that it cannot by any
means be mixed or confounded with the civil power. I have
proved” that the Christian Church is a true and proper so-
ciety; I have proved® that the authority of governing this
society is committed to the three orders of ministers. How,
therefore, this power and authority can be transferred to the

HUGHES
DISSERT. IIT.

358 The Christian ministry instituted by Christ ;

aprenpix. ClVil magistrate it is past my skill to discern. I own, in-
Ao vis deed, that there is nothing in the nature of things can hin-
der but that the civil and ecclesiastical authority may meet

in one and the same person; for the exercise of the latter is

by no means inconsistent with the administration of the

former. And it is agreed among all learned men that be-

fore the law of Moses the supreme civil and sacerdotal power
remained in the hands of the first-born’. Hence we read of

Gen. 14. 18. Melchisedec that he was both a king and also “the priest of
the most high God.” Abraham was a priest to himself and

his family, offered sacrifices, and ordered as he thought fit

all things relating to the worship of God. The case was the

same with all kings, and with heads of families, who them-

selves were also very often kings. But God, who knew what

was fit for His Church, thought good to change this order cf

things, and therefore taking away this right of primogeni-

ture he transferred the priesthood to certain particular per-

sons. He chose the tribe of Levi, and the family of Aaron,

out of all others, and adorned them with the illustrious dig-

nity of the typical priesthood. To them only He gave leave

to carry the tabernacle, to slay the sacrifices, and to burn

incense in His presence. And whatever authority of old

kings had claimed in things sacred did now all of it accrue

to this peculiar order, and did so accrue to it that it was no

longer lawful for kings, without the greatest impiety, to

meddle with these sacred things. It was not now permitted

to the kings of Judah either to offer sacrifice or to burn in-

cense. Upon all that violated the priesthood God inflicted

Been: the most grievous punishments, as we learn from the exam-
‘ple of Uzziah. The same and abundantly more may be said
of the Christian priesthood. The most blessed founder of

our religion did not revive that ancient and patriarchal
priesthood, nor left it to the powers of this world to frame

their own forms of Church-government, but partly Himself,

and partly by His Apostles, He consecrated to Himself a
peculiar select order of men, separated from the multitude

of the faithful to represent Him and perform ecclesiastical

offices. To these, and to these only, He committed the right

of consecrating His most sacred body and blood in the Eu-

* [See above, vol. ii. p. 200, note n. ]

its powers cannot be exercised by the civil rulers. 359

charist, and that of inflicting ecclesiastical censures, the nvcues
power of proposing articles of faith, and authority to ordain ———“"“*
others. No man living can consecrate the holy Eucharist,

nor admit any one into the Church, or after he is admitted

shut him out again, but he that has received this power from
Jesus Christ, who has promised that He will ratify that in
heaven which they shall do according to His institution upon
earth. A king as he is king, as he is the supreme power,
neither has nor can have any manner of right whatever in
offices purely spiritual, for there is a very great difference to

be made between natural religion and religion which is re-
vealed and instituted. In natural religion, I readily own, it
belongs to the supreme power to take care of things sacred,

and to name, and choose, and appoint such as may preside

in holy offices. Where there is no revelation, this right is
grounded on the nature itself of the supreme power, to which

it belongs to order and appoint with full authority what
things soever may conduce to the public good. But grant-

ing that religion was instituted by God Himself the reason! ' [« the
is altogether different. We are obliged to observe His in- “*’]
stitution, let it be what it will, and though it appear never

so unjust to the civil magistrate. Since, therefore, it was
sufficiently proved in the preceding dissertation that Jesus
Christ committed this society to bishops, it follows that the
Church cannot be so blended with the civil society as that

its spiritual rights should be transferred to the supteme
power in such a manner as that all ecclesiastical powers
must be derived from that only.

No man can efficaciously administer the Sacraments but
he who is instituted to that office by Jesus Christ, and to
whom Christ has promised to ratify whatever he shall per-
form according to that institution. The emperor, or the
sovereign authority in whomsoever it resides, never received
this power from Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot effica-
ciously administer the Sacraments.

No man can ordain others, that is, grant them a power of
administering the Sacraments, but he who has received this
authority from God, to send others, and endow them with
such privileges as these. But the sovereign power, as such,
never received this authority from God.

APPENDIX,

NO. Vil.

360 Powers of Christian princes in ecclesiastical matiers

No man can with authority determine concerning con-
troversies of faith, but he to whom the custody of the faith
is committed ; to whom it belongs to propose the faith to the
people, as a necessary condition of ecclesiastical communion.
But the faith was never committed in this manner to the
civil magistrate. Jesus Christ committed the depositum®,
the form of sound words to the Apostles, and the Apostles
to bishops. It belongs to them to propose the faith, with-
out the profession of which no man ought to be admitted
into the Church of Christ. It is their business to judge,
whether such a one thinks rightly or not concerning the
fundamental articles of faith: and it appertains to them to
determine which articles are to be esteemed necessary and
fundamental. Hence moreover we collect, that it belongs to
bishops to compose creeds, to explain controverted articles ;
and if the necessity of the case require it, with new terms to
confirm and defend them against heretics. And therefore
the most holy fathers of the council of Nice did by the term
consubstantial admirably confirm the doctrine of the holy
and undivided Trinity against the unreasonable wiles of the
Arians. Besides, all Christians are obliged not only to pro-
fess the faith in general, but to express it in terms appointed
by the Church. They that do otherwise, and either reject
the terms of the Church, or invent new ones of their own
heads, are deservedly shut out of the Church.

These powers our blessed Saviour committed to the
governors of His Church: and for that reason I maintain,
that they cannot be transferred to the civil magistrate.

But our adversaries will object, that there is no need
there should be found in the holy Scripture express mention
concerning this matter. This right, say they, arises from the
nature of the sovereign power, to which alone it appertains
to perform all those things that any way regard the weal
public, and the advantage of the society. I own indeed, that
this objection would have some weight if our controversy
were concerning mere natural religion. But, as was observed
above, it is of no moment at all in religion that is revealed.
Jesus Christ has delegated these powers to a certain peculiar

determined by Christ’s appointment ; their extent. 361
order, without any the least mention, that they were to be
devolved upon the civil magistrate, as soon as he should
embrace the Christian faith. It is therefore necessary that
the civil magistrate depart from his natural right, to pay
obedience to the institutions of Jesus Christ. This is what
the Jewish kings did: the Christian emperors also did the
same most willingly: and all princes are obliged to do the
same, who believe that the hope of eternal life is placed in
the merits of Christ’s death.

‘But the followers of Erastus go on with their noise. What,
say they, according to your hypothesis a Christian king has
no authority in ecclesiastical matters, all things depend upon
the will of the clergy, who, as is very often seen, are not
wont to be too favourable to the regal dignity. It is not
permitted to Christian princes to stir the least pin of the
Church without the bishop’s leave: but to do it were the
greatest impiety, and a profane invasion of the priesthood.

But on the contrary, we who are priests do openly main-
tain, that according to our hypothesis Christian kings have
the greatest authority even in matters ecclesiastical.

Now, what may be safely allowed to Christian princes in
ecclesiastical matters, without any prejudice to the divine in-
stitution, we may learn from Grotius. Kings, says hee, may
do these things following with respect to sacred matters.

“Ist. They may take care that what is commanded by
God, be performed with liberty and conveniency.

“2ndly. The human law superinduces a new obligation,
not only by permitting, but also by commanding what is
already commanded by the divine law.

& [Primum a summis potestatibus
duéeows fluit, quod ea que Deus impe-
rat, libere, imo et commode facimus
amotis impedimentis, datis adminiculis
... Secundo...Jex humana non tan-
tum permittendo, sed et jubendo quod
jubet lex divina, novam superaddit ob-
ligationem .. . Tertio summa _potestas
humanas circumstantias quosdam loci,
temporis, modi actionis a Deo impera-
tis prescribit, ut fiant eboxnudvws Kal
kara taéiv. Hue spectant leges, &c....
Quarto per humanum imperium vetitis
a Deo actionibus materia et occasiones
subtrahuntur. Sic Ezechias amovet

HICKES,

excelsa, &c.... Quinto summe potes-
tatis est penis propositis homines ad
ea adigere que Deus jubet, et a vetitis
absterrere... quod Oelwy véuov mapa-
pvaakhy egregie vocat Justinianus.—
Novell. (Auth. Coll., lib. ix. tit. 20.)
CXxxvii. . . . quemadmodum Augus-
tinus dixit Epist. xlviii. ad Vincentium
(Ep. xciii. Op., tom. ii. p. 239, A. ed.
Ben.) ‘ Serviant reges terre Christo,
etiam leges ferendo pro Christo.’—Gro-
tius de Imperio Summarum Potesta-
tum circa Sacra, c. xi. Op., Theol.,
tom. iv. p. 214.}

HUGHES
DISSERT, III.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

362 These powers willingly conceded to the sovereign.

“3rdly. The sovereign power prescribes certain circum-
stances of place, time, and manner to actions commanded
by God, in order to the more decent performance of them.
Hitherto belong various laws in the Novels.

“Athly. Human laws take out of the way the matter and
occasions of such actions as are forbidden by God. Thus
Hezekiah removed the high places.

“Sthly. It belongs to the supreme power, by denouncing
punishments, to constrain men to do those things which God
commands, and to deter them from what he forbids. And
Justinian calls this, ‘the keeping of the divine laws*’ And
to the same purpose is that of St. Augustine, ‘ Let the kings
of the earth serve Christ, even by making laws for Christ‘ ”

These are those things which the bishops granted to the
first Christian emperors: contented with these, those excel-
lent princes did not so much as desire any farther power ;
but accounted it the greatest impiety, either to invade or
to diminish the offices of the priesthood. And we likewise
most willingly allow the same authority, and the same privi-
leges to the supreme power; but a larger authcrity than this
we neither can nor dare allow, for fear of basely and dis-
honourably betraying, to the destruction of our souls, and
the apparent ruin of the Catholic Church, the most holy
offices of the priesthood, which our blessed Saviour has in-
trusted with us. We maintain and defend the sacerdotal
dignity in such a manner, as that no occasion of fears and
jealousies can be taken from thence by kings, whom we most
freely acknowledge to be next to God, and inferior to Him
only: and to resist whom, even when they command what is
most unjust, we stedfastly pronounce not only to be unlaw-
ful, but to be a crime that shall be punished with eternal
damnation. We so regard and reverence the authority of
kings, as yet to esteem it inferior to that of Jesus Christ: for
we are careful, as becomes both Christians and priests, not
by a base and abject flattery to give those things unto kings
which Jesus Christ claims wholly and entirely to Himself.
This therefore after all is what we mean, this is what we so

" Oclov véuwv mapapvdarh.—Auth. i Serviant reges terre Christo,
Coll. ix. tit. 20. Novell. Const. 137. etiam leges ferendo pro Christo.—[S.
Pref. August. Ep. xciii.Op., tom. ii. p.239, A. ]

Objection from an imperium in imperio, answered. 363

eagerly contend for, that the things that are Cesar’s be
rendered unto Cesar, and that those which belong to God,
and to Christ, and to the Church, be in like manner granted
unto them.

Our adversaries do farther object, that granting the Church
of Christ to be a true society, distinct from the civil, it will
hence follow, that there will be* one government or society
within another; which both implies a contradiction, and
roots up the very foundations of the civil society. This is
an objection they never fail to make; this they continually
challenge us with: and confidently boast that it can never
be answered. And yet such is the unhappy confidence of
these men, that if we look never so little into it, we shall find
nothing was ever seen more trivial and foolish, than this
very objection: for

HUGHES
DISSERT. ILL

lst. It may be safely denied, that from our hypothesis it °

follows that there will be one government or society within
another: for by government they ought at least to under-
stand a government vested with power of life and death. To
suppose two such governments independent of each other, in
one society, does indeed imply a most manifest contradiction.
But what is this to us? It may perhaps be of some force
against the papists; but against us it is of none at all.

We most industriously disclaim, in our society, all external
force whatsoever: we affirm over and over, and stedfastly
maintain, that the Church of Christ is not of this world; but
that all its punishments, as well as its rewards, are to be ex-
pected in the world to come. She gives not the least dis-
turbance to secular governments, which without any opposi-
tion from the Christian Church, evjoy all things that appear
any way necessary to their preservation. Mr. Selden knew
all this very well; and for that reason would acknowledge
no punishments, but such as are external and coercive!:
but how very trifling this is, and how unworthy of Mr. Selden,
is evident to all men at the first view.

2ndly. Granting that it followed from our hypothesis, that
there would be one government or society within another,
there is no consequence from thence, which is either absurd
or contradictory: the reason is plain, because these govern-

k [mperiuim in imperio. 1 [ Selden, ibid., p. 941.
] I ? > k

364 Objection from the contrary commands of the civil

APPENDIX. ments or societies are of such a different nature, for one is

AON secular, the other spiritual; one endowed with external
power, the other with such as is only spiritual and internal.
Hereto must be likewise added, that the Christian Church
teaches us to pay the most devout obedience to the civil
magistrate; and in the fullest manner condemns all sorts of
resistance whatsoever. Why may not these two societies
agree very well in one government? As far as I can discern,
they mutually confirm and adorn one another.

Srdly. We shall find one government within another
almost from the very infancy of the world; therefore this in-
volves no contradiction. Every political government com-
prehends many paternal governments within it. Parents
have aright to the obedience of their children from the law
of nature; the obligation of which law cannot by any means
be abrogated by the sovereign power. And yet the sovereign
power has no reason to be afraid of this paternal government;
because the power of life and death is placed only in the
civil magistrate. Now for the very same reason the State
can receive no damage from the Church; which enjoys only
an internal power.

But our adversaries urge still farther.

It may happen, say they, that the king may command one
thing, and the bishops the contrary: so that it will be im-
possible to obey both their commands. What shall the
people do? They stand hesitating and know not which way
to turn themselves: if they obey the Church, they must
expect nothing but racks and halters; but if they comply
with the prince, they must be condemned to eternal flames.
Who does not see, say they, that in this case the very found-
ations of the society are undermined and dissolved.

Now to all this I return these several answers.

Ist. If it shall happen that the king and the Church im-
pose contrary commands, I grant indeed that a great incon-
venience will arise from thence, and a grievous calamity.
But can we thence conclude, that there cannot be one
government within another: because there may arise some
inconveniences from such a supposition: I cannot, I confess,
see the least shadow of a consequence in this. As if there
were any state of things in this world, so happily and _per-

and spiritual rulers ; answered, and rules suggested. 365

fectly established, as to be liable to no inconveniences. I sup-
pose our disputant came lately out of Utopia; the arms and
arguments he makes use of are so evidently of that growth.
2ndly. It can never happen, that the political and the
sacerdotal power have any struggle with each other, while
they contain themselves within the bounds that are proper
to each of them. Let the king govern his people, and con-
sult the safety and ornament of the State; and let the priest
serve the altar, faithfully expound the word of God, explain
the faith and defend it: let the king strengthen and adorn
the Church with his secular authority: and let the Church
make the subjects obedient and faithful to the king, by the
principles of Christianity, by the obligation of conscience, and
by the most just dread of hell and eternal damnation. By
this means the Church makes the most grateful returns to
the king for the benefit of his protection. Believe me, the
sovereignty and the priesthood are in their nature so dis-
posed by God, that they mutually embrace and cherish each
other. Neither of them can be happy and perfect without
the other. The sacerdotal without the secular power, wants
both ornament, and protection; and the secular without the
sacerdotal, does in vain require the faithful allegiance of the
subjects, and the stedfast obedience which arises from con-
science. Away therefore for ever with those worst of men,
friends neither to God nor the king, neither to Church nor
State, who dare to separate and disjoin the two greatest
powers in the world, that most sweetly agree with each other,
and are not only safe, but happy in their mutual embraces.

S3rdly. Granting that it may happen that the king and
the bishop impose different and contrary commands; in this
case it is not so difficult as they pretend to determine to
which of the two obedience must be paid. Let us only con-
sider a little these few and those very easy rules, and all the
difficulty will immediately vanish.

Ist. If the bishop invade the rights of the civil magistrate,
there is no obedience due to him; because secular power
does not belong to the bishop, as he is a bishop. All the
power that he has of that nature must of necessity be
derived from the civil magistrate, who may revoke it when-
ever he thinks fit.

HUGHES
DISSERT.IIL.

APPENDIX,

NO, VII.

Acts 4.19,

366 02). from ecclesiastical powers being limited by the civil.

2ndly. If the king violate the rights of the bishops, it
must be well considered whether the rights thus violated
are such as were committed to the Church by God, or as are
owing to human laws, namely, to the constitutions of canons.
For,

1. If they are of the former kind, we must obey the
bishop (which is in this case to obey God) rather than the
king. This controversy, if it ought to be called a controversy,
has been determined by the Apostles themselves.

2. If they are of the latter sort, and are plainly indiffe-
rent, and do no way strike at the essentials of religion,
obedience must be paid to the king and not to the bishop.
But

3. If they are of a doubtful nature, and it be very probable
that an essential part of the Christian religion is in danger,
it will then be best and safest to obey the decrees of the
Church, and with a great and stedfast mind to bear the
punishments inflicted by the civil magistrate.

He that observes these rules will, in all contests of this
nature, easily perceive to which side he ought te join himself.

There is still remaining one objection, though it hardly
deserves that name, which our adversaries are wont to pro-
duce as the last struggle for their sinking cause: and I shall
not think much to vouchsafe an answer to it, though it does
not at all deserve one. The objection being brought into
the form of a syllogism, stands thus.

Those powers which may be limited by the civil magis-
trate, are derived only from the civil magistrate: but ec-
clesiastical powers may be limited by the civil magistrate.
Therefore ecclesiastical powers are derived only from the
civil magistrate.

I deny the major proposition which the Erastians will
never be able to prove. But that you may fully perceive
the weakness of this argument, you need only consider the
Jewish priesthood. Few will deny that that was derived
from God. And yet every one knows that with respect to
the outward exercise, the priesthood of the Jews was limited
by the Jewish kings; which yet does not prove that these
sacerdotal powers were derived only from the civil magis-
trate. How then, I beseech you, should it prove that in

The powers allowed to the Church by the emperors. 367

the Christian priesthood! Let our adversaries find this out,
and as occasion offers, let them impart the secret to us.

Hitherto I have argued from the nature of society, that
the ecclesiastical can by no means be blended with the civil
government ; I mean so blended, as that the spiritual powers
should be transferred to the secular. But for a more full
and perfect decision of this controversy, it will be very
necessary to consider what was the opinion of the most
holy fathers concerning the nature of this society. Whether
they thought that this society was temporary, formed only
for the present exigence of time, and afterwards to sink
into the civil, and be consolidated with it; or that it was
a society distinct from the civil, and to remain so to the
end of the world.

II. My second argument is taken from the very conces-
sions of the emperors. I will begin with Constantine the
Great. In the time of this emperor two calamities miser-
ably afflicted the Church. One, a controversy concerning
the celebration of Easter ; the other, the impious heresy of
Arius concerning the Son of God, which had spread far and
wide. The pious and truly Christian emperor, to apply some
remedy to these evils, convenes a council at Nice, and refers
all these matters to the judgment and determination of the
bishops. But let us see in what words he addressed himself
to the bishops, and what he seemed to think of their autho-
rity. Socrates relates™, “‘That the emperor being entered
into the council, would not so much as sit down till the
bishops desired him.” In an epistle written concerning the
decrees of the council, the most holy emperor expresses him-
self in these words", “Since therefore three hundred and
more bishops, wonderful for their gravity and sagacity, have
all confirmed one and the same faith..... Let us go to the
common body.” And after a few words he proceeds thus
“ For that which the three hundred bishops decreed, is

m ov mpdtepov KabiCew, mply by ot
énloKxorot emivevoeav.—Socratis Hist.
Keel., lib. i. c. 8. [tom. ii. p. 20.]

n rpiakoclwy yotv Kal mAclovwy em-
okdrwy em cwppoctvy Te Kab ayxivola
OavuaCouevwy play Kal Thy abThy miotw
...BeBaotytwv... em rd kowdy copa
.. + twwev. — [Epist. Const. Imp. ad

Eccl. Alexand. } ibid., [p. 30.]

° 0 yap tots TpLtakoclos Hpecev emi-
oxdrots ovdév eat Erepor, 4) Tov Oeov
youn, wdALoTSa ye Grou TO Gy.ov TvED LA
TowvTav Kal THALKOUTWY avdpaYv Tais
Siavolais éyretuevov THy Oclay BobAnow

eLepwricev.—t| Id., ibid. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT, III.

APPENDIX.

NO, VIII.

568 Constantine on the authority of the Bishops.

nothing else but the determination of God, especially where
the Holy Spirit, inspiring the minds of such and so great
men, revealed the divine will.” And in his epistle which
he sent to the Churches?: ‘or,’ says he, “whatsoever is
transacted in the holy councils of bishops, is all to be re-
ferred to the divine will; for which cause ye ought to re-
ceive the reason above-mentioned.” And in his discourse
with the bishops we meet with this expression’, ‘* You
indeed are appointed by God a bishop of those things which
(or of those persons who) are within the Church; I, of those
that are out of the Church.” What Constantine means by
Ta €xTOs THS é€xxAnoias, “the things which are out of the
Church,” is very aptly explained by a canon of the council
of Carthage, which decrees thus": “ If any one be disobedient
to his bishop, he shall be deposed: .... If he persist in his
madness, he shall be chastised by the external power,” that
is by the secular. Therefore Constantine’s meaning was,
that the State belonged to him, and the Church to the
bishops: and that this was the opinion of that most excel-
lent emperor, we are informed by Ruffinus, who describes
Constantine expressing himself in these words’: ‘ God has
made you bishops, and given you power to judge also of us;
and therefore we are rightly judged by you; but you cannot
be judged by men.” It cannot be doubted what Constan-
tine’s opinion was concerning the sacerdotal authority. He
openly affirms that bishops have power to judge even con-
cerning emperors in things spiritual; and that this power
was committed to them, not by the civil magistrate, but by
God Himself. But farther, from these passages taken toge-
ther, we may easily collect these following particulars.

Ist. That it appertains to Christian emperors to convene
councils, at least such as are general and cecumenical. This

P may yap 8,71 & by ev tots ayiois deponetur:...si pergat insanire cas-

TaVY emicKdTaY ouVEdplols mpaTTHTAL,
TovTO Tpds Thy Belay BovAnow exer THY
avapopav’ Sid Toy mpoeipnucvoy Adyov
brodexerOa . . . dpelAere.—{ Id. Epist.
ad Ecclesias, ibid., p. 34.]

1 duets wey Tay elow THS exkAnolas,
eyw 5€ tay exrds exkdAnolas brd cod
Kabiotdwevos erlokomos by etjv.—[ Eu-
seb. Vit. Const., lib. iv. c. 24. ap. Hist.
Eccl., tom. i. p. 638. ]

* Si quis episcopo inobediens fuerit,

tigabitur 51a THs ZEwbev eEovolas. [This
canon the Editor has not succeeded in
finding. |

5 Deus vos constituit sacerdotes; et
potestatem dedit de nobis quoque judi-
candi: et ideo nos a vobis recte judi-
camur: vos autem non potestis ab
hominibus judicari.—Ruff. Hist. Ecel.,
lib. x. c. 2. [ Eccl. Hist. Auct., p. 218,
B. Basil. 1528. ]

Determinations respecting the faith belong to Bishops. 369

power the first Christian kings ever claimed to themselves ;
and we also most willingly allow the same to our kings: what
the Jesuits prate of the authority of the Roman pontiff in
this particular is all vain, frivolous, and without foundation.

2ndly. That it belongs to the bishops only, and to such
as are ecclesiastics, to examine into controversies concerning
articles of faith; to condemn unreasonable, false, and here-
tical propositions ; to confirm by new testimonies such as are
true and catholic, and to propose them to the people to be
believed. This is most evidently collected from the very
words of Constantine. ‘‘ Whatsoever,” says he, “is deter-
mined by a plenary council of bishops, that is to be regarded
as the will and determination of God, and ought to be re-
ceived by all Christians‘.” This one thing is to be ob-
served, that this determination of the faith, established by
the Nicene fathers, derived all its virtue and obligation, not
from royal authority, but from the spiritual power of the
council, From these two propositions there arises another.

3rdly. That the Christian society is not mixed and con-
founded with the civil.

From Constantine let us proceed to Theodosius, who will
most clearly confirm our opinion. It is very well known to
every one, how the emperor, as he was entering into Milan,
was treated by St. Ambrose, who was perfectly well ac-
quainted with the bounds both of the temporal and of the
ecclesiastical authority. Having encouraged a cruel and
barbarous slaughter, the emperor goes to the church after his
usual manner; but St. Ambrose meets him, tells him it is
neither right nor lawful for a man laden with so heinous a
guilt to approach to the holy table, and be made partaker of
the Eucharist; and then breaks out into these words": “ ‘ De-
part therefore, and do not attempt to increase your former
transgression by additional sins: but take the bond which
God, who is the Lord of all, confirms by His suffrage from
above. For this is medicinal, and a procurer of health.’ The

t Geod yvdun, kai Ceod BovAnots. [See Tpikds dt obTOs, Kal mpdtevos bytelas. TOV-
above, notes 0, p. The passage in the ous elkas 6 BaciAebs Tots Adyots* Tots
textis given as the substance of Con- ‘yap Oelois Aoylois évTeOpaupevos Hoe
stantine’s words. | Tapas Tiva mev Ta lepewy, Tlva, Se To

* a@mri@t Toivuy, Kal ph meip@ Tots dev- BaciAewy tia, K.r.A.—Theodoret. Hist.
TEpols THY mpoTepay atte mapavoulay, Lccl., lib. v. c. 18. [pp. 215, 216. See
kal béxou Thy decor, @ 6@cbs dTav dAwy above, vol. ii. p. 331, sqq. |
deomdtns tywhey yivera ciubnpos. ia-

HICKES. 3B

HUGHES
DISSERT. II,

370 Inferences from the case of Theodosius.

arrenpix. emperor yielding to these words, for being instructed in the

NO. VIII.

divine oracles, he knew very well what were the proper offices
of bishops, and what of kings,” &c. And then at last being
reconciled to the ,Church, he professes to Nectarius. that he
now understood the difference between an emperor and a
bishop*. “TI was hardly,” says he, “at last instructed, what
was the difference between a bishop and an emperor. I with
difficulty at last found a master of truth; for I know none
but Ambrose that deserves to be called a bishop.” From this
most full evidence of the emperor’s may be drawn a very
strong argument against Mr. Selden’s hypothesis. In the
first place the bishop by the right of the keys repels the
emperor from the holy Eucharist. The emperor, “ perfectly
instructed in the Christian faith’,”’ submits to the bond of
excommunication: he owns that there is a very great differ-
ence between a bishop and a king; that each of them has
his proper offices, which the other cannot usurp. He desires
absolution of the bishop in the most humble manner; and
after performing due penance, at last obtains it. Theodosius
does by no means reprove this proceeding of St. Ambrose,
as rash, or bold, or impious: on the contrary, he extols him
with praises after a wonderful manner, that he had behaved
himself with that constancy of mind which became a bishop
of Jesus Christ. Is it credible, if all ecclesiastical powers had
been derived from the civil, that St. Ambrose, a man bred up
at court, and that bore a very great affection to his prince,
and was most observant of him, would treat him with so
much impudence and impiety? Is it probable that the em-
peror would not only take no notice of this most unjust and
insolent affront, and let it escape unpunished ; but would also
approve and commend it? It is abundantly evident, that the
Christians of the fourth century had a quite different opinion
concerning episcopal authority, from that of our modern re-
formers, who have nothing more at heart than utterly to
subvert and overthrow all ecclesiastical power, and together
with the power of the Church to destroy the Christian reli-
gion itself.

* pdyis Baotrdéws Kal iepéws ebiddx- p: 218.
Onv diapopav' wdyis eopoy aAnOelas bi- Y tots Oelois Aoylos évTepaumevos.
ddokadrov’ "AuBpdc.oy yap olda pdvov [See above, note u. ]
erigkoroy akiws kadovmevov.—ld., ibid.,

Canons of councils obligatory as such. 371

If we descend to the council of Chalcedon, we may find
many things that confirm the truth of my assertion. The
emperor Marcian absolutely renounces and disclaims all
power of judging concerning matters of faith. He acknow-
ledges over and over, that it belongs only to God’s priests.
But I refer the reader to the acts of the council themselves’.

Hereto likewise ought to be added that famous answer of
the emperor Valentinian to the bishops, who desired him
that they might meet and correct the errors introduced by
the explication of the word ‘ consubstantial*.” Sozomen
gives us his answer, and it is conceived in these words?:
“ For me indeed, who am ranked among the laics, it is
not lawful to examine too nicely into such matters; but let
the bishops, to whom the care of this belongs, meet by them-
selves wherever they please.”

What was the opinion of the emperors concerning the
authority of the Church and the powers of the Christian
priesthood, it will not be difficult to conjecture from what
I have said: but before I dismiss this argument, it may not
be unprofitable to add something concerning the imperial
laws which related to matters ecclesiastical. From thence,
without the least difficulty, this controversy of ours will be
determined. For if all the authority of the Church were
mixed and confounded with that of the State, then all spiri-
tual powers are to be derived from the secular fountain; and
no ecclesiastical laws can become obligatory even in con-
science, any farther than as they are confirmed by the em-
peror. But if on the contrary it shall appear (as, if I am not
mistaken, it will most evidently) that the Church ever enjoyed
an authority proper to herself; that the ecclesiastical canons
derived their force of obligation from the councils themselves ;
that the bishops always exercised this authority ; and that the
emperors always acknowledged it: if (I say) I can make all
this appear, will it not follow with the clearest evidence, that
the ecclesiastical authority is most fully separated from the
civil? And that all this is so, no man will deny, who having

z [See Epist. Imp. Marciani xxxiii. ® euol pey mera Aaod TeTaypEvm, od
sqq. ap. Cone. Chalced. part i.Concilia, @€uis Tomita moAurpaypoveiv’ of 5é
tom. iy. col. 832,sqq. et AllocutioImp., fepe?s, ois TovTou méAet, Kad’ éavTovs
ibid., Actio vi. col. 1476, A, B.] bmn BovdrAovra cuvirwoay. — Sozom.

4 duoovoLos. Hist. Eeel., lib.vi. cap. 7.[ tom. ii. p.227. ]

HUGHES -
DISSERT. II.

372 Catholic teaching on the relation of Church and State.

arrenpix. carefully perused the Theodosian and Justinian codes, will

NO. VIII.

there easily perceive that the Christian emperors never de-
termined anything concerning articles of faith but what had
been before decided by councils; that they never inflicted
ecclesiastical censures, but always referred the exercise of
that power to the bishops, as a thing most foreign to the
royal dignity.

But before we come to the laws themselves, it will not be
disagreeable to my purpose to lay before the reader what the
Catholic Church has determined concerning the true agree-
ment of these two highest powers, the sacerdotal and the
imperial. For although on the one side she most strenuously
contends that the Church of Christ is a spiritual society, and
contains in her by the grant of God all those things which
may any way seem necessary to her preservation, even in the
worst of times: for which reason she has always claimed to
herself a power of determining controversies of faith; that of
ordaining bishops and presbyters, to whom only it appertains
to offer up prayers publicly to God for the multitude of the
faithful, and to administer the Sacraments; and lastly, a
power of inflicting ecclesiastical censures: although, I say,
on the one side the Church always laid claim to these powers,
and claimed them as such as can neither be alienated from
the Church, nor transferred upon any other, even upon the
emperor himself; yet on the other side she most evidently
granted that we are subjects as well as Christians; and as
subjects are under the government of the secular magis-
trate: that kings are bound to serve God, not only as pri-
vate men, but also as kings: that they are guardians of the
laws of both tables; that they are assertors and defenders of
the ecclesiastical canons; that they have the greatest power
over all Christians, as they are Christians, and even over ec-
clesiastics themselves; that it belongs to them to take most
diligent care, that ecclesiastical canons constituted by coun-
cils be most religiously observed by all persons, and espe-
cially by the clergy ; that they have power to make laws for
establishing the observation of such canons, and to subject
those who do not observe them, not only to secular, but also
to canonical punishments: not that emperors can either
exclude a private Christian from communion, or depose a

The emperors did not determine matters of faith. 373

bishop, but they can press the governors of the Church
both to deprive the one, and excommunicate the other, for
offending against the canons. And from hence the answer
is easy to all those laws which frequently occur in the codes,
whereby it is commanded that such a one be excommuni-
cated or deposed. They by no means prove what Mr. Selden
pretends’, that the emperor, for that reason because he is
emperor, has power of excommunicating or deposing. They
prove no more than this, that Christian kings have power to
confirm the canons, and to oblige the clergy to inflict eccle-
siastical censures, according as the canons prescribe. But
these two things, if I am able to discern anything, are very
widely different.

Having premised this, I come now to the imperial laws
themselves, from which it will most clearly appear, what the
emperors of the fourth century judged concerning the autho-
rity of the Church; and with how unanimous a consent they
all disclaimed, as foreign from them, those spiritual powers
which have with so much labour been attempted to be fast-
ened upon them by Mr. Selden, and by Erastus and all his
followers, who are very numerous.

First, it is abundantly manifest from the imperial laws, that
the emperors never determined anything concerning matters
of faith, but what had been first decided by councils.

I will begin with the Theodosian code: and here we meet
with “that golden sanction*” of Theodosius, “that pious and
wholesome edict,” (as Baronius justly calls it,) “ whereby the
most excellent emperor confirms the Nicene faith, and com-
mands, “that according to the apostolical discipline, and the
doctrine of the Gospel, we believe the one Godhead of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, under an
equal majesty and a sacred Trinity®.”’? He commands like-
wise‘, that all people “embrace the same religion which St.

¢ [Selden. de Synedriis, c. x. Op., Trinitate credamus.—[ Cod. Theod., lib.

tom. i. col. 942, sqq. |

@ [Aurea illa sanctio.— Baronius,
Annal. Eccl. A.D. 381. num. 1. The
Editor has not found the other words. ]

© Ut secundum apostolicam discipli-
nam, evangelicamque doctrinam Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, unam deita-
tem sub parili majestate, et, sub pia

Xvi, bite i. 2a

£ [Cunctos populos, quos clementiz
nostre regit temperamentum, in tali
volumus religione versari, quam divi-
num Petrum apostolum tradidisse Ro-
manis, religio usque nunc ab ipso insi-
nuata declarat; quamque pontificem
Damasum sequi claret, et Petrum Alex-

HUGHES
DISSERT. III.

374 The emperor only confirmed what the councils had decreed.

arrennix. Peter delivered to the Romans, and which Damasus bishop

NO. VIII.

of Rome, and Peter bishop of Alexandria, do still,” says he,
“most stedfastly hold,” namely the very same faith which
was declared by the council of Nice.

The most serene emperor, in concurrence with the decree of
the council of Constantinople, commanded that the Mace-
donian heresy, which that council had condemned, should be
utterly extirpated, and “that all heretics® should be expelled
out of the Churches, ...to the end that the sacerdotal offices”
(they are the very words of the law) “of the true and Nicene
faith may remain uncorrupted.” Sozomen also makes men-
tion of this law in these words’: “ And these things were
thus decreed by the council,” (namely by that council which
Nectarius assembled at Constantinople:) ‘and the emperor
ratified them by his suffrage, and made a law, that the faith
of those who had met at Nice should be confirmed.” That
which the historian means is, that the council condemned the
error of Macedonius, and proved the Nicene faith by a new
testimony ; but the Christian emperor added force to the
council’s decrees, and confirmed them by the secular power.
The same thing may be observed of all the imperial laws,
which were made concerning articles of faith.

The emperors Valens, Gratian, and Valentinian enacti,
“that as often as any contest should happen among the
clergy concerning any matter relating to religion, it should
especially be observed, that the presbyters of the diocese being
convened by the bishop, the matters in controversy should be
determined by their judgment.” So the interpretation.

We must distinguish between ecclesiastical and secular
causes. “ Political actions,” as the Novels speak*, which ap-

andriz episcopum.—Ibid. The words
of the preceding note follow this pas-
sage. |

* Omnes autem qui ab eorum, (Pa-
trum scil. Concilii Constant. ) fidei com-
munione dissentiunt, ut manifesto he-
reticos ab ecclesiis expelli, &e. .
ut vere et Nicznge fidei sacerdotia

also the previous part of the law. ]

® Kal Td wey Sde TH cuvddw EBote. Kal
6 Baoireds erednpiaaro, Kal vowov e0eTo
kuplay elvan Thy wioTw Tey ev Nikala ov-
veAndAvbotTwy.—Sozomen. Hist. Eccl.,

lib. vii. cap. 9. [tom. ii. p. 289. ]

i {Impp. Valens, Gratianus, Valen-
tinianus, &c.... Quoties ex qualibet
re ad religionem pertinente inter cleri-
cos fuerit nata contentio, id specialiter
observetur, ut convocatis ab episcopo
dicecesanis presbyteris, qu in con-
tentionem venerint, judicio terminen-
tur.—Cod. Theod., lib. xvi. | tit. 11, 23.
[ Interpretatio. ]

Kk qoditikad éeykAnuata. — Novella
Constit. Ixxxiii. Pref. [Auth. Collat.,
lib. vi. tit. 12. ap. Corp. Jur. Civ. ]

Ecclesiastical questions to be decided by Bishops. 375

pertain to the practice of the public law, belong to the civil
magistrates, and ought to be determined by them: but it
is fit that causes of faith, “ ecclesiastical controversies',” be
decided by bishops: nor can they without impious rashness
be handled by the secular magistrate. This we are taught
by the most peremptory testimony of the ancient fathers,
who had the greatest veneration for the powers committed
to them by Christ, and defended them with the utmost con-
stancy™. Hence it was, that the most holy Ambrose in-
veighed with so much bitterness against the emperor Valen-
tinian the younger, because he had violated the sacred au-
thority of the bishops, and had submitted ecclesiastical causes
to the judgment of the laics. ‘‘ When,” says he, “ most gra-
cious emperor, did you hear that laics judged concerning
bishops in a cause of faith? Are we therefore so bowed down
by flattery, as to be unmindful of the right of the priesthood?
And that what God has bestowed upon me, I should think
ought to be committed to others? If the bishop be to be
taught by a laic, what will be the consequence? Therefore
let the laic dispute, and the bishop hear ; let the bishop learn
of the laic. But certainly if we either consider the tenor of
the holy Scriptures, or call back ancient times, we cannot
deny, but that in a cause of faith the bishops were wont to
judge concerning the emperors, and not the emperors con-
cerning the bishops*.”

In his oration against Auxentius he has these words®:
“Tribute is Cesar’s; none denies it. The Church is God’s,
and therefore ought not to be ascribed to Cesar; because
the temple of God cannot be Czesar’s right. Which no man

l re exkAnowaotiKa Cythuara.—No- laico. At certe si vel Scripturarum se-

vel. Constit. Ixxxiii. c. 1. [ibid. q. v. ]

m Vide Basil. Epist. ccclxxxv.
[ Epist. eexxy. ad Demosthenem. Op.,
tom. ili, p. 344. ed. Ben.] S. Gregor.
Nazianz.ad Nectarium. [ Epist. clxxxv.
Op., tom. ii. p. 152. ed. Par. 1840. ]

” Quando audisti, clementissime im-
perator, in causa fidei laicos de episcopo
judicasse? Ita ergo quadam adulatione
curvamur, ut sacerdotalis juris simus
immemores? Et quod Deus donavit
mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem esse creden-
dum ? Sidocendus est episcopus a laico,
quid sequetur? Laicus ergo disputet,
et episcopus audiat; episcopus discat a

riem divinarum, vel vetera tempora re-
tractemus, quis est qui abnuat in causa
fidei, in causa, inquam, fidei, episcopos
solere de imperatoribus Christianis, non
imperatores de episcopis judicare ?—
[S. Ambros. Epist. xxi. ad Valentini-
anum, § 4, Op., tom. ii. col. 860, E,
sqq. |

° Tributum Cesaris est, non nega-
tur. Ecclesia Dei est, Cesari utique
non debet addici: quia jus Cesaris
esse non potest Dei templum. Quod
cum honorificentia imperatoris dictum
nemo potest negare: quid enim hono-
rificentius, quam ut imperator ecclesiz

HUGHES
DISSERT, III.

APPENDIX.

No. VIII,

376 The Code and Novells of Justinian shew that the

can deny to be said with due honour to the emperor: for
what is more honourable than that the emperor should be
said to be the son of the Church. And when this is said, it
is said without offence, nay it is said with respect. For a
good emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.”
What could have been conceived more full, or more suitable
to my purpose, than this testimony of the venerable father?
Is it possible to believe that Mr. Selden’s hypothesis obtained
at that time? Who, pray, can so much as suspect that the
Church was so blended with the civil government, as that all
ecclesiastical powers were to be derived from that only ?
Nay the contrary is most evidently demonstrated. St. Am-
brose, and the fathers of the fourth century, did not im the
least dream that all the power of the Church depended upon
the secular magistrate, and was to be fetched from the im-
perial law. Innumerable are the instances to this purpose,
with which we are furnished in the Theodosian code: but
the bounds of this discourse will by no means suffer me to
venture any farther into so vast an ocean.

Let us proceed therefore to the emperor Justinian, and
see what he has determined concerning this most important
question.

In his code there is extant the emperor Marcian’s edict
in these words: “ Let no man dispute publicly concerning
the Christian faith; for it is also injurious to the judgment
of the most reverend synod, if any one shall go about to
reverse and publicly dispute things that are once determined
and rightly disposed: seeing that those things which are
known to have been now decreed concerning the Christian
faith, by the bishops who were assembled at Chalcedon by
our command, were established according to the expositions
of the Apostles, and the constitutions of the 318 Nicene
fathers, and of the 150 in this royal city?.”

filius esse dieatur? Quod cum dicitur,
sine peccato dicitur, cum gratia dicitur.
Imperator enim (bonus) intraecclesiam,
non supra ecclesiam est.—[Id., ibid.,
Sermo contra Auxentium,) ibid., § 35.
col. 873, C.]

» Nemo... de fide Christiana (pub-
lice disputet) ... nam et injuriam fa-
cit judicio reverendissimz synodi, si
quis semel judicata, et recte disposita,

resolvere, et publice disputare conten-
derit: cum ea que nunc de Christiana
fide a sacerdotibus, qui Chalcedone
convenerant per nostra precepta, sta-
tuta sunt juxta apostolicas expositiones,
et instituta sanctorum patrum 318 Ni-
cee, et 150 in hac regia urbe, definita
esse noscantur.—Cod. Justin., lib. i.
[tit. i. leg. 4. ap Corp. Jur. Civ. ]

Emperors only confirmed what the Church had decreed. 377

“Neither let any man either speak or write against the
venerable council of Chalcedon 4.”

In the book of Authentics we shall find other instances
like to these ; or rather yet more full to our purpose. Out
of that immense heap I will select one or two.

** We enact therefore’, that those holy ecclesiastical canons
obtain the force of laws, which were expounded or confirmed
by the four sacred councils ; that is, by the Nicene council
of 318 holy fathers ; by the Constantinopolitan of 150; by
the first council of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was con-
demned ; and by that of Chalcedon, wherein Eutyches was
anathematized together with Nestorius: for we receive the
decrees of those four now mentioned councils, as we do the
holy Scriptures; and shall observe their canons as laws.
And therefore we enact according to their determinations.”

“If* we study that the civil laws, the power of which God
through His goodness to men has entrusted with us, be kept
inviolable by all, for the security of such as obey them : how
much more care ought we to take to keep the sacred canons
and divine laws, which are established for the salvation of
our souls? For they who keep the sacred canons are worthy
of the help of our Lord God: but they who transgress them,

thereby render themselves obnoxious to judgment.

4 Nulli etiam contra venerabilem
Chalcedonensem synodum liceat ali-
quid vel dictare vel scribere, &c.—
Ibid., tit. v. [leg. 8. § 5. ibid. ]

* Sancimus igitur vicem legum ob-
tinere sanctas ecclesiasticas regulas,
quz a sanctis quatuor conciliis expo-
site sunt aut firmate, hoc est, in Ni-
ceno 318, et Constantinopolitano sanc-
torum patrum 140, et in Ephesino pri-
mo, in quo Nestorius est damnatus, et
in Chalcedonio, in quo Eutyches eum
Nestorio anathematizatus est: predic-
tarum enim quatuor synodorum dog-
mata sicut sanctas Scripturas accipi-
mus, et regulas sicut leges observabi-
mus. Ideoque sancimus secundum
earum definitiones.

[Oeorifouey tolyuv, rdw vouwv eré-
xew ToVs aylous exkAno.acTiKO’S Kavd-
vas, TOVS bmd TOY ayiay Tecodpwy ov-
vodwv extebevtas 7) BeBaiw0évras, Tov-
TeoTt TOUS ev Nikala tev Tin’, Kal Tovs
év Kwvotaytwourddet Tay orylwy py’ ma-
Tépw, Kab Tovs ev Edom mportns, ev Hh

HICKES,

There-

Neotdpios katexpidn’ nal Tovs év Xad-
xndov, Ka® Hv Evrixns wea Neoroplov
aveBeuatiaOn. TaY yap mpoeipnuevwy
aylwv ovvddwv Kal Ta Soyuara Kabdrep
tas Oeias ypapas dexducba, Kal rods
Kavévas ws vduous puAdrromev® Kal did
TovTO VeoTiCouey KaTaA TOs avTaY bpous,
k.T.A.]—Auth. Collat. ix. tit. 14. ¢. 1.
Novell. exxxi.

8 ef Tovs moAiTiKOUS véuous, aY Thy
ekovolay auiy 6 Oebs Kata Thy EavToD
piravOpwrlay emlorevoe, BeBalovs die
mavtov puddtrecbat mpos aopdAciay
tov imnkdwy orovdafouev, éow MGA-
Aov TAclova omovdhny ddelAouey OeoOcu
mep) THS TaY tepav Kavévwy, Kal DEiwy
vouwy Tapapvdakhy Tay imwep THs TOY
TeeTepav Wuxav owrnplas dpicbévrwv.
ot yap Tovs iepovs kavdvas puAdrTorTes,
THs TOV Seandtov Beod BonOelas atiovv-
Ta* Kad of rovTovs mapaBalvovres, av-
Tol EavTovs TH Katakploe: bmoBdAAovat*
pelCovt 6€ bmdKerra KaTuKpicoe of doid-
Taro. emloKkotot, ois memiotevtat Ka) Cn-
Te TovsS Kavdvas, Kal pudAdTTelv, Eelrep

3 Cc

HUGHES

DISSERT, III.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII,

378 The Church retained its powers under the emperors.

fore those most holy bishops lie under greater condemnation,
to whom it has been entrusted and committed to enquire
into and observe the canons, if they leave any omission of
them uncondemned and unpunished. . . For if the general
laws do not allow that the transgressions of the laics escape
both inquisition and punishment: how shall we suffer those
things to be despised, which have been canonically decreed
by the holy Apostles and fathers concerning the salvation of
all men?” ...“ That ordination of bishops‘ ought to be ad-
ministered with all diligence and rigour, Gregory the divine,
who is also accounted among the saints, plainly teaches us,
following the Apostles and the divine canons.” .... Anda
little after : ‘‘ Resting therefore upon these things, which have
been decreed by the sacred canons, we make the present
law,” &c.

But I will stop here, that my dissertation may not exceed
its bounds. From these imperial laws, which I have set
down with the utmost fidelity, may be very easily gathered
these following particulars.

1. That causes of faith cannot be handled bv laics, without
the greatest impiety, and a contempt of the divine ordinance.

2. That the emperors of the fourth century, as often as
they enacted anything concerning the faith, did that in con-
sequence and confirmation of the decrees of councils.

3. That all such are unmindful of the sacerdotal right who
think this power of determining concerning articles of faith
is to be entrusted with laics.

4, That it appears from the tenor of the holy Scriptures,
that bishops are used to judge concerning emperors in con-
troversies of this nature, and not emperors concerning
bishops.

5. That ordinations of bishops ought to be performed, that
is, observed, with all diligence and rigour.

TL TOUTwY TapaBawduevoy, aveKdinToV
kataAepOeln.— Auth. Coll. ix. tit. 20.
(Novell. Const. 137.) Prafatio.
yap Kal Ta mapa TaY Aaikay amap-
Tavdueva of yevikol véuot ov cvyXwpovat
dixa nthoews, kal exdinhoews KaTOALL-
TaVvETOal, TAS TA Tapa TOY Aylwy amTo-
oTéAwy Kal matépwy imip Ths mdvTwv
TOV avOparwy cwrnplas KavoriK@s dia-
Tumwdevta mepidety dvarxducba;—

[ibid., cap. 1.]

' Ort 5€ Tas Neporovias Tay tepéwy
Meta maons akpiBelas (cum omni dili-
gentia et rigore) mpoohkea yiveo@a, 5:-
ddoKe: Huds, kat 6 ev aylors Tpnydpios, 6
Geordyos, Emouevos Tots wyiots amooTé-
Aois, kal Oelois Kavdor... Tots ovv brd
Tov Ociwy Kavdvey dpiobetow aKodou-
Godvtes, Toy mapdyTa Totovmeba vdpor,
k.T.A.—L[ibid., ¢e. 2. ]

Argument from the contests between the two powers. 379

_ 6. That ecclesiastical canons derive their authority and
obligatory nature, not from the civil power, but from coun-
cils and the determinations of bishops.

And from all these particulars I farther argue, that the
Church of Christ under the Christian emperors retained a
legislative power committed to it by Jesus Christ Himself ;
and consequently that it is a true society distinct from the
civil; and therefore is not by any means blended and con-
founded with the civil society.

III. My last argument is drawn from the contests which
have happened between the emperors and bishops; and of
this very briefly.

It is a thing most notorious, that there were the greatest
controversies and the most grievous contentions between the
Arian emperors and the Catholic bishops. And it will make
very much for our purpose, if we rightly understand, how
the bishops behaved themselves towards the emperors; what
powers they claimed as due to them by divine right; and on
the contrary what they owned to have received from the
emperors. Our question is stated concerning the matter of
fact, viz., whether the Christian society was so incorporated
with the supreme civil power, as that all the rights of the
Church depended upon the secular magistrate: or whether
it reserved to itself spiritual powers entire and untouched.
Now this will appear most evidently from these contests.

First therefore let us hear St. Athanasius himself, the
great ornament and support of the Christian faith. In his
Epistle to such as lived a solitary life, this most holy con-
fessor writes thus"; ‘“ The bishops hearing these things, (viz.,
the emperor’s menaces,) and being very much astonished,
lifted up their hands to God, and proposed their reasons to
the emperor with very great freedom, informing him that the
kingdom was not his, but God’s, who had given it to him,
whom they prayed him to fear, lest He should suddenly take
it away again: and threatened him with the day of judg-

ment; and advised him not

« TavTa akovoayTeEs of ericKoTOL, Ta-
vuye Oavudoaytes, kal Tas xeipas dva-
TeivavTes mpos Toy Yedby TOAAT TH Kata
avrov Tappynola ueTa Adywv exphaayto,
GiddcKevtes wy elvat Thy Bagirciay av-

to corrupt their ecclesiastical

TOU GAAG TOD Dedwxdros Oeod, dy Kal mo-
BeicOa avtdy nkiwy, uh ébalpyns avThy
apeAnta methouy TE Thy Huepav THs
Kploews, kal cvveBovAevoy a’Te mh Sia-~
poelpe TH exkAnoiagTiKd, nde CyKaTa-

HUGHES
DISSERT. III.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

380 St. Athanasius, Hosius, and Lucifer of Cagliari against

rights; nor blend the Roman empire with the decrees of the
Church.” And again: “For when,” says he, “were such
things heard from the beginning of the world? When did
the judgment of the Church receive its authority from the
emperor? Or when was this ever owned as a judgment?
There have been many synods before now, and many judg-
ments or determinations of the Church ; but neither did the
fathers ever address themselves to the emperor in these
things: nor did the emperor concern himself with the affairs
of the Church*.” From these words of the most holy
father it is evident beyond contradiction, that the fathers of
the fourth century were of opinion, that the Church is a
society subsisting of itself, separate from that of the State.
They thought that it belonged to none but the bishops to
determine controversies of faith: they judged it a very
heinous crime for the emperor to concern himself in matters
of this nature. This was the opinion of that most excellent
and courageous prelate, who was perfectly well acquainted
with the nature of the Christian religion, and maintained it
with the greatest constancy. He had not the least suspicion
of any authority in ecclesiastical matters that appertained
to the civil magistrate, nor of the confusion of those two
powers.

Next to St. Athanasius let us hear Hosius the famous
bishop of Corduba, a man truly great, and eminent both for
piety and constancy of mind; though at last wearied out
with old age and misery, he left a memorable example of
human weakness.

In an Epistle which he wrote to Constantius himself, there
is this passage most worthy of a primitive bishop ": “ Forbear,
I beseech you, and remember that you are a mortal man ;
dread the day of judgment, and preserve yourself pure

wloyew thy ‘Pwuaikhy apxhvy tH Tis
exkAnotas Siatayh.—t|S. Athan. Hist.
Arian. ad Monachos, § 34. Op., tom. i.
pp- 363, E. sqq. |

* wéTe yap €k TOU ai@vos HAKovabn
TowavtTa; mwdTe Kplois exkKAnolas Tapa
(Tov) Buctréws 2rxe Td Kdpos, ) BAws
éyvaiaO (TodT0) 7d Kplua; moAdal ov-
vodot mpd TovTov "yeydovact ToAAG Kpl-
Mata THs exkAnolas yéyover" GAN odreE
oi matépes emeicdy mote wep) rovtTwr

Bacthkéa ote Bacirkeds Ta THS eKKAN-
clas mepepyacaro.—t| Id., ibid., § 52.
p. 376, A. }

Y wavoal, mapakad@, kat pvioOnri,
bt. Ovntds &vOpwros TUyxXaVELS’ PoBH-
Ont THY Hucpay THs Kplaews, PUAatov
ceauToy eis exelvny Kkabapdv’ un Tide
ceauTov eis TH eKKANTLATTIKG, uNde TV
mept To’Twy juiy TapakeAcvou' GAAG
MGAXoy Tap Huey ov udvOave TadTa’ col
Baoirelav 6 Beds evexelpioev. Huiv ra

the interference of the emperor in ecclesiastical questions. 381

against that day. Do not concern yourself in the affairs of
the Church, nor lay any commands upon us in such matters;
but rather learn such things from us. God has invested you
with the kingdom, but has entrusted ecclesiastical matters
with us: and as he that secretly invades your government,
resists the ordinance of God; so do you also beware, lest by
drawing to yourself those things which belong to the Church,
you become guilty of a great crime. It is written, Render
unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the
things which are God’s. Neither therefore is it lawful for
us to govern upon earth, nor have you, O emperor, power to
offer incense.” He admirably agrees with St. Athanasius.
He repeats almost the same words, and most expressly dis-
tinguisheth between the regal authority and the sacerdotal.
As it is a crime for the bishop to snatch the reins of the
empire, so it is a crime for the king to usurp the rights of
the bishop.

The last I shall mention is Lucifer bishop of Cagliari, a
most strenuous defender of the Nicene faith, and of the
discipline of the Church. This bishop of Cagliari wrote
three bold Epistles’, and such as shewed the spirit of a bishop
throughout. He sent these Epistles to the emperor Con-
stantius, to plead in behalf of St. Athanasius. In the first
of them there are these words?: “ Confess yourself a Chris-
tian, join with us in execrating the sect of the Arians, raised
by the device of the devil; believe as we believe, who are
bishops deriving our succession from the blessed Apostles ;
confess the only Son of God, as they confessed Him, and as
we confess Him; and you shall obtain the pardon of so great

crimes.” And a little after: “It is not to be wondered at,

HS ek<Angias emictevoce’ Kal Homep 6
Thy onv apxhy brokdéentwyv ayTireyer
7@ diarakapevy eG" ottw poBHOnT:, m7
kal ov TA THS exKAnolas eis EavTdy EA-
kwy, bmevOuvos eykAhuate meyary yevn’
amddore, yéypamra, T& Kalcapos Kai-
copt, Kal TA TOU Beod, TS Ded" ovTE Tol-
vuy nuiv &pxew em) rhs yas keoTw ovTeE
av Tov Oumidy ekovclay exes, BaoiArcd.
—[ Hosii Epist., ibid.,§ 44.p.371, A, B.]

z [There are only two “books” of
the work pro S. Athanasio here referred
to; they are addressed to Constantius,
as are the other treatises of Lucifer of

Cagliari; but his epistles are not. ]

* Fatere te Christianum; execrare
nobiscum catervam commento diaboli
queesitam Arianorum ; crede sicuti cre-
dimus nos, qui ex beatorum apostolo-
rum successione sumus episcopi: con~
fitere unicum Dei filium, sicuti illi
confessi sunt et nos confitemur, et ve-
niam consequeris tantorum scelerum.
..». Non mirandum quandoquidem
scriptum teneamus, ‘sanctus autem im-
mundus est apud malos,’ vobis malignis
displicet is, qui Deo placeat, tibi pre-
sertim temerario et superbo, qui teme-

HUGHES
DISSERT. IL.

APPENDIX.
NO. VIII.

382 That the right of excommunication belongs to the Church

since we remember it is written: ‘He that is holy is vile
among the wicked ;? he that pleases God displeaseth all you
that are impious, and you especially who are rash and proud,
and are hence known to be rash and proud, because you
have stretched out your hands against the ordinance of God;
because you thought that the apostolic tradition was to be
destroyed ; and because you determined to reduce the bishops
under your jurisdiction, under whose care you ought to
demean yourself.”

See with what an infinite cloud of most undeniable wit-
nesses we are encompassed on all sides. Whether we con-
sider the holy fathers in their private works, or appeal to
councils both general and provincial, or regard the testimo-
nies of the emperors themselves, or lastly, have respect to
those various and unhappy contests which arose between the
Arian emperors and the orthodox bishops, from all these
particulars it is most clearly demonstrated that the Chris-
tian society, from the times of Constantine, did never incor-
porate with the civil government, but always remained en-
tire and distinct.

DISSERTATION IV.

THE RIGHT OF EXCOMMUNICATION BELONGS TO THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH BY DIVINE RIGHT.

In the former Dissertations I have, I hope, fully and co-
piously proved that the Christian Church is a! true and
proper society, distinct and separate from the civil society,
and administered by governors of her own; and from those
premises it always appeared to me to follow that the right of
excommunication belongs to her; for we must either deny
that the Church of Christ is a society, which the followers of
Erastus are for the most part used to deny, or if we grant
this, we must also acknowledge that this society comprises
in it a power of excommunicating. Nothing can be ima-
gined more clear and evident than this; and yet such is the

rarius hinc intelligeris acsuperbus,quod —_tuerat, sub tuam ditionem censueris re-
contra Dei ordinationem tetenderisma- digendos.—[ Luciferi Caralitani pro S.
nus; quod apostolicam traditionem pu- Athan., lib. i, ¢. 33. ap. Biblioth. Pa-
taveris destruendam; quod episcopos, trum, Galland., tom. vi. pp. 169, B,
sub quorum te sollicitudine agereopor- 170, B.]

jure divino ; argued (1.) from the nature of a society. 383

wicked perverseness of mankind, that there are not wanting
such as do not only deny this power to the Church, but also
maintain with great vehemence that it is both ridiculous and
absurd. And indeed they have endeavoured with the great-
est zeal and earnestness to shew that this tyrannical opinion,
as they are pleased to call it, cannot be defended either by
reason, or by the holy Scriptures, or by the example and
authority of the primitive Church. For this reason I might
seem to be very much wanting to my purpose if I should
pass by a controversy of so great moment and importance
without taking notice of it. It shall therefore be my pro-
vince to shew clearly and distinctly, and yet in a few words,
how much support this cause of ours receives both from rea-
son, and from holy Scripture, and lastly from the examples
of the purest ages; and I cannot but entertain the strongest
hopes that all these do make very much for us and our case.

I affirm, therefore, that the right of excommunication be-
longs to the Church by divine right, and this I shall endea-
vour to prove from these following arguments.

I. My first argument shall be drawn from the very nature
of society. That the Christian religion is a true and proper,
although it be a spiritual society, is so clear and evident that
nothing can be more. For it is not by any means sufficient
for our salvation to give credit to the Gospel, and conform
our lives according to the moral precepts contained therein :
it is also necessary for us to join ourselves to the Church of
Christ, that we may partake of the Sacraments which Christ
instituted for that end that they may be conveyances of
grace to us, without which we cannot please God. To say
all in one word: Jesus Christ, God-man, by the merits of
His passion, has obtained for us reconciliation and forgive-
ness of sins; but He has so annexed this forgiveness of sins
to His Sacraments instituted in His Church, that we must
not so much as hope for this forgiveness without the partici-
pation of those Sacraments. And this sufficiently demon-
strates the Christian religion to be a true and proper society.

It cannot be denied that every society whatsoever has all
those things which are necessarily required to preserve the
society safe and entire; but for preserving a society safe and
entire it is in the first place required that it have a power of

HUGHES
DISSERT, Tv.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

384 This power was conferred on the Church by God.

receiving worthy and fit persons into the society, and of
turning out such as are refractory and unworthy. All men
must necessarily grant me this. Without this power it is
not possible for any, even the least society, to subsist.

The Christian Church is a true and proper society ; there-
fore it is necessary that the Christian Church have the same
power of admitting worthy and fit persons, and of ejecting,
that is, of excommunicating such as are obstinate.

Hence, likewise, we may collect that this power of excom-
munication appertains to the Church by divine right. For
since the Christian Church is a true and proper society,
founded by God Himself, it most evidently follows that God
has granted to this society all those privileges which are ne-
cessary to preserve it as a society. Therefore it was very
well observed by the learned Grotius», that for the asserting
of this power to the Church of Christ it is not necessary to
descend to particular passages of holy Scripture. This is
abundantly demonstrated from the very nature of society.
And indeed this right of excommunicating appears so neces-
sary, I will not say to the Christian Church, but to every
religion whatsoever, that you will hardly find one sect or
way of worship, even among the heathen, that does not enjoy
the like privilege. We are informed by Julius Cesar¢ that
the Druids were wont to exclude those from their sacrifices
who did not observe their decrees. In Philip of Macedon’s
Epistle to the Athenians we read, “that the people were so
exasperated against the Megarenses, because they had killed
Anthemocritus, as to exclude them from their mysteries“”
And the scholiast of Aristophanes observes, “that it was the
custom that murderers should not partake of the sacrifices®.”
Nicolaus Damascenus says of the Cerceti, a people of India,
“that they shut out from their holy rites such as had any
way injured them’.” It is a thing most notorious, that be-
fore the sacrifices were slain a crier made proclamation with

b [The Editor has not been able to tadauBdvwor rv Ovoi@y.—[Schol. in
find the statement here attributed to Aristoph. This passage the Editor has
Grotius. ] not succeeded in finding. ]

a cis TobTo eAnavdev 6 dipuos, Gore amelpyyuvor.—t| Nicolai DamasceniFrag-
HuoTnpioy wey elpyew advtovs.—[Epist. menta, wep) é0av cuvayeyns, ad calc.

Philippi, ap. Demosth., p. 159, 21. } fBliani Hist. Var. p. 310. Lips. 1819 ;
© Kara Tb os of avdpopdvor pw) pe- et ap. Stobzeum, tit, xliv, 41.]

Excommunication practised by the Apostles. 385

a loud voice, “ Away, far away ye profane’,” “Shut the doors
upon the profane'.” From all which it most evidently ap-
pears that all sects of men whatever have enjoyed this power,
viz., “of excluding from the sacrifices the profane, the im-
pure, the unholy,” and of ejecting them out of their society.
Such instances do by no means prove what this vile factor of
the atheists would prove from them, that the Christian Church
borrowed this tyrannical custom, as he calls it, from the
heathen; but they manifestly prove that excommunication
is so necessary to all sorts of religion, that the heathen them-
selves did by the light of nature both find out and exercise
that power. Indeed it appears to me very hard and unjust to
deny the Christian religion (which was constituted by Christ
Himself) that very power which the wiser heathens most
freely allowed even to the foolishest religions in the world.

Supposing, therefore, that the Christian religion is a true
society, no man that has not finally bid adieu to all modesty
can deny that the right of excommunication belongs to it
by divine right.

And here, peradventure, those various instances men-
tioned in sacred writ might not be improperly alleged, by
which it appears that the Apostles themselves exercised this
power for which we contend. I will content myself with
only one of them, that of the incestuous Corinthian. St. Paul
reproves the Corinthiansi, that they had not mourned for
that wicked person who was just going to be removed from
the Church, for the holy Apostle had resolved to take away
this most grievous sinner from among them, to cast him out
of the Church, and “to deliver him unto Satan.” But for
what purpose was this? To what end does the Apostle do
it? To wit, that the incestuous person being broken and
softened by this severe discipline might return to a better
life; that the Church might suffer no damage; that the
sounder part might not be infected with this corrupt exam-
ple, for rotten fruit is apt to affect that which is sound, and

g [éxas, Exds, batts GArtpds.—Calli- h [@dpas 8’ éerlOecbe BeBhdAais (al. Be-
machi Hymn. in Apollinem,lin.2. Ser- BfAo.)—Orphei Fragm. i. 1. ap. S.
vius on Virg. Ain. vi. 258, quotes as Just. M. Cohort. ad Gree., c. xv. Op.,
from Callimachus, éxds, éxds éore Bé- pp. 18. ed. Ben. See the note there for
Ando, and the words are commonly so _ the other places in which it is quoted. ]
quoted. | i 1 Cor. v. 2.

HICKES. 3D

HUGHES.
DISSERT. IV.

386 An objection ayainst excommunication answered.

arrexpix. had example does wonderfully weaken such as stagger and

NO. VIII.

are infirm, and gives a tincture even to the best. “A little
leaven,” says the Apostle, “leaveneth the whole lump*.”
Let us now consider, if you please, the reason of the apo-
stolic censure. The incestuous person is by the Apostle’s
command thrown out of the Church of Corinth, that is to
say, 1s excommunicated. And he is excommunicated for
these two reasons. Ist. That he might repent and return
to the right way. 2ndly. That with his pollution he might
not infect other Christians, particularly such as were weak.
But these very reasons will always continue the same in the
Christian Church; therefore this power of excommunicating
will be always necessary in this Church.

I cannot here pass by in silence a famous objection first
made by Erastus himself, and since stolen from him by all
that have pleaded the same cause. The objection is this,
that none ought to be excluded from the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper, because no such command occurs in the holy
Scriptures: nay, if they, good men, are not miserably mis-
taken, we find commands there which are directly contrary.
“ Let a man examine himself,” says the Apostle, “and so let
him eat of that bread and drink of that cup'”’? None must
approach unworthily to the holy table; but it is in the power
of each particular Christian to judge whether he be unworthy
or no. The Church has no authority in this matter, say
they; the bishops have none. This objection, as much as it
may at first sight appear to favour the Erastians, has nothing
solid in it, and is very easily confuted. For

I will take this for granted, which I have most fully
proved, that the right of excommunication belongs to the
Church: if, therefore, the Christian Church can exclude out
of her society persons that are wicked and profligate, she
can also reject them from the holy Eucharist. The partici-
pation of this blessed Sacrament is the greatest privilege of
the Christian Church: but he that is for a just cau8e de-
prived of the holy society of the Church is also deservedly
deprived of the participation of this Sacrament. Our adver-
saries, therefore, who make this objection, do nothing but

K puxpd Ciun bdrov 7d dtpaua Evuor. 1 Cor. v. 6. » 1 Cor. xi, 28.

Second argument ; from the power of refusing Baptism. 387

miserably trifle; for they must either prove that the Church
of Christ cannot cut off her rotten members with the spiri-
tual sword, or remain eternally silent, and at least with their
silence confess themselves overcome.

II. My second argument I take from baptism: “Go ye,
therefore,” says our blessed Saviour to His Apostles, “and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you™.”
From these words it is plain that Jesus Christ gave His
Apostles and their successors command, by this Sacrament
of Baptism, to admit all persons whatsoever into the Church,
with this condition and proviso, that they should promise
most religiously to observe all things whatsoever Christ had
commanded. For which reason the Apostles had, and their
successors have not only power of administering baptism,
but also power of judging who are worthy to be admitted
into the spiritual society and who are incapable and unwor-
thy. Those whom they judge worthy they do by baptism
most willingly make partakers of the heavenly rewards; but
such as they find to be unworthy they either wholly reject
or subject them to farther discipline. And that the primi-
tive Church always exercised this power is abundantly mani-
fest from that severe and most wholesome discipline which
was observed with regard to the catechumens, that is, such
as were candidates for baptism. They were admitted into
the Church very late: first exercised during a space of many
years; macerated with continual fasting; instructed and
confirmed by frequent exhortations; after all which they
obtained the freedom of the Christian city. Now from this
power I argue that the Church has right of excommunica-
tion; for it is one and the same power, but administered
after a various manner, and by a different method. They
who have power of denying admission by baptism to such as
they shall judge to be unfit or incapable, have not they also
power of expelling them that are admitted if they prove
contumacious, if they violate and trample under their feet

m / > f Ul c sf , e 6 5 Ul > ‘\
mopev0évtes obv wabnrevoate mavTa aylov mvevuatos’ bibacKoyTEs avTOUS
S > ~ ” ~
7a €6vn, BamtiCovres avrovs eis TH OvO- TpEeiy TavTa boa evETELAgUnV duly.
fa TOU TaTpos, Kal Tov viov, Kai tou Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

HUGHES
DISSERT. 1V.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIIL

388 Third argument ; from our Lord’s words, Matt. xvi. 19.

the fundamental conditions of the society? If we allow
them one of these powers the other will follow of course,
and cannot be denied them. Since, therefore, it is agreed
on all sides that Jesus Christ committed power to the clergy
to admit all such persons into His Church as they should
find to be fit and worthy, it cannot be doubted but He also
gave them power to cut off from it such as should prove
wicked and contumacious.

III. My third argument is borrowed from the holy Scrip-
ture. And I will give unto thee” (says our blessed Saviour
to St. Peter) “ the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and what-
soever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven ".”

I assert, that in these words Jesus Christ committed to
His Church a full power of excommunicating.

It is, if am not mistaken, sufficiently agreed among Protes-
tants, that the power which is comprehended in these words,
whatsoever that power be, was not delivered to St. Peter
alone, as the Papists maintain ; but did likewise belong to all
the rest of the Apostles without exception.

It will also be granted me, that this power did not expire
with the Apostles; but is to continue to the end of the
world. Having premised this, I shall now apply myself to
explain the words themselves. But for the more clear under-
standing of our Saviour’s meaning, we must remember that
these words, which He made use of in this place, were taken
from Isaiah’s prophecy°, where there is this passage :

“ And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his
shoulder: so he shall open and none shall shut ; and he shall
shut and none shall open.” The prophet speaks of Eliakim
the son of Hilkiah, who the Lord foretold should come to
the kingdom of Israel. Isaiah describes to us the kingdom,
or the right of governing, by the key of the house of David,
and the power of opening and shutting. It is very manifest,
that these expressions denote the highest exercise of royal
authority. And therefore what man in his senses can doubt,

2s. \ A a a “~ a atal
» Kal d@ow cor Tas KAEtS THS Bacle AcAvpEVvoy ev Tots ovpavois. Matt. xvi.
/ ~ > ~

Acias TwY ovpavayv’ Kal d cay Shons em 19.
~ - y ; pie ee

THS YS, COTA Sedeuevoy ev Tots ovpa- ° Tsa. xxi1.*22.

San ann ? ao aes
vois* Kalo €av Avons eml Tis yijs, ora

The Talmudists wrongly alleged in explanation of them. 389

but these very words used by our blessed Saviour, since they
are so apparently taken from this passage of Isaiah, do sig-
nify a certain royal authority in that spiritual kingdom, the
foundation of which He was going to lay in His own blood ?

What, I beseech you, can be understood by the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and by the power of opening and
shutting, but the highest exercise of government? If the
passage be taken in this sense, there is nothing in it, but
what is clear and perspicuous: but if the words are wrested
to any other meaning, they will appear harsh, foolish, and
ridiculous.

But the followers of Erastus object, that the expressions of

loosing and binding do signify nothing else but the explica-
tion of what is lawful or not lawful. And this is explained
by preaching the gospel of Christ. Such expressions occur
very frequently in the Mishnah and Talmud, and in the
Rabbinical writers, as Dr. Lightfoot, an author of very great
knowledge in that kind of learning, has by a long induction
of examples shewn upon this very text?. I own that this is
the common subterfuge, to which all our adversaries have
recourse. This objection is made by Erastus, and Selden,
and all the other writers against the Christian priesthood.
But as plausible as it may appear, I make no doubt of utterly
overthrowing it.
- I acknowledge that the expressions of binding and loosing
are used by the Talmudists in this sense: but I positively
deny that these words, as they are used by our Saviour, are
to be interpreted the same way : for

Ist. It is to no purpose to produce so many examples of
this kind out of the Rabbins, as Dr. Lightfoot has done, even
till one is sick of them, though otherwise a man of great
learning, yet too much addicted to the dreams of the Gemara:
for (as the learned Mr. Dodwell observes) “ ever since the use
of the sacerdotal power has been lost among the Jews, they
have also lost the very knowledge of that power.” Therefore
it is of little importance in this controversy, what these ex-
pressions signify in the Talmudists. Who does not know,
that the Rabbins have ever since the destruction of the temple
been groping in more than Egyptian darkness; and have

? [ Lightfoot, Hore Hebr. in Matt. xvi. 19. Works, vol. ii. pp. 206, 207. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT. IV.

APPENDIX.

NO. VII.

390 =To be understood of forgiving sins, as John xx. 23.

invented I know not what monstrous fictions, with which
their writings do every where abound ?

Such declarations as these are derived from the 630 pre-
cepts, and from that power which the Jewish priests had of
explaining and determining all things, which the law of
Moses?! had not determined, as may be seen in Deuteronomy.
But since these 630 precepts are abolished by the gospel of
Christ, and that power which was exercised by the Jewish
priests does nowhere appear, it is not any way possible that
we should thus interpret this passage. Nay it is necessary
that we find out another interpretation of it, and that alto-
gether different from this.

2ndly. Besides it ought to be observed (for it is certainly
most observable) that this power of binding or loosing is the
power of the keys. As often as the priest either binds or
looses a sinner, he uses the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
he shuts and opens. I desire therefore that we may be
allowed to explain the expressions of binding and loosing,
which may seem obscure, by that of the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, which is most clear and perspicuous. And then
nothing can be more evident, than that by the keys of the
kingdom of heaven is meant the government and power of
the Christian Church: for which reason I must insist upon
it, that the expressions of binding and loosing be so under-
stood as to agree with this power of the keys. This is far-
ther confirmed by that passage of St. John, ‘‘ Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re-
tained’.’” 'To bind therefore and to loose is the same as to
remit sins and to retain them. And indeed in all the New
Testament “to remit or forgive sins*” signifies nothing else
but to wipe out sins, to abolish both the punishment and
guilt of them, and that authoritatively. ‘Son be of good
cheer,” says our blessed Saviour to the man sick of the palsy,
“thy sins be forgiven thee*.”

3rdly. I am thoroughly persuaded, that the explication
which I have given of this place is true; because it 1s con-

9 Deut. xvii. 12. 22523:
/ ~
T AaBete mveiua aywov' &y tTwwv S adiévar Gmaptias.
244A \ c a 347 > a u a ai > , a €
APINTE TAS Auaptias, aplevTat avTois* uy ' @apoer, TEKvov, apewyTat ToL at

The Catholic Church has always exercised this power. 391

firmed both by the opinion and by the practice of the primi-
tive Church. The Catholic Church has always claimed this
authority from the times of the Apostles down to ours; and
as often as occasion required has exercised it.

The primitive Church always laid claim to this power. of
excommunication; and claimed it as committed to the
Church by Jesus Christ in this very passage: and which
is yet more, did not only always exercise this power, but
accused all those of heresy who attempted either to take it
away or to weaken it. This is most evidently attested both
by the Montanists and by the Novatians.

That the primitive Church claimed this authority will
appear, lst. From the most express testimonies of the fathers.
2ndly. From the penitential canons, which almost all coun-
cils, as well general as provincial, have made. 3rdly. From
the schisms which in the most ancient times were formed
upon this occasion, viz., those of Montanus and Novatian.

Ist. Let us look into the most express testimonies of the
holy fathers. Tertullian in the Apology« which he drew up
for the Christian faith, describes the Church of Christ after
this manner: ‘“ We are a body from the agreement of our
religion, and the unity of our discipline, and the covenant of
hope. There,” that is in the sacred assembly, “ there are ex-
hortations, reproofs, and a divine censure: for judgment is
passed with great solemnity, as among persons persuaded of
God’s presence at the sentence; and it is a very great pre-
judice, or ruled case against the future judgment, if any one
have so offended as to be banished from the communication
of prayers, from the public assembly, and from all sacred
commerce.” From this one passage, which is so very full and
express, these three particulars may, I think, be very easily
deduced. Ist. That the power of excommunicating such as
were contumacious prevailed in the age of Tertullian. 2ndly.
That this was a primary part of the Christian discipline,
which they did not institute by any compact among them-
selves, but received as delivered down to them from the very

u Corpus sumus de conscientia reli-
gionis, et disciplinz unitate, et spei foe-
dere. ... Ibidem etiam exhortationes,
castigationes, et censura divina. Nam
et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut
apud certos de Deiconspectu, summum-

que futuri judicii prajudicium est, si
quis ita deliquerit, ut a communica-
tione orationis, et conventus, et omnis
sancti commercii relegetur.—[ Tertull.
Apol. c, 28, (al. 39.) Op., p. 31, A.J

HUGHES

DISSERT. IV.

appenvix, Apostles.
- NO. VIIL

392 Testimonies from Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and

3rdly. That the effect of excommunication was,
that it excluded from the kingdom of heaven: for it was
the highest predetermination of the future judgment, if
any one did so offend, as to be banished from all sacred
commerce.

Next to Tertullian let us hear his scholar St. Cyprian, in
whom we meet with so many and such excellent passages in
proof of the authority of the Church, that it is difficult to
determine which we ought chiefly to make choice of. This
most holy martyr wrote a whole book concerning the lapsed,
in which he rebukes them with great severity for daring to
receive the holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper so hastily and
rashly, before they had performed their penance. The whole
argument of this book supposes, that the Church has power
to shut out from the holy communion such as are unworthy,
and have the stains of grievous sins upon them, until they
have cleansed themselves by due penance, and made them-
selves worthy of the most holy mysteries. He inveighs most
severely against the lapsed; and asserts, that they “had
offered violence to the body and blood of Christ*, in that
they had communicated before their crimes were expiated ;
before they had made confession of their sin; before their
conscience was purged with the sacrifice and absolution of the
bishop.” And almost at the end of the book, he earnestly
exhorts themY, “ every one to confess his sin, while he is still
in this life; while his confession may be admitted ; and while
the satisfaction and remission administered by priests is ac-
ceptable to God.” In his tenth Epistle he treats upon the
same subject, and has these words: “ For seeing the sin-
ners do for less sins perform penance for a certain time, and
according to the order of discipline come to confession, and

by imposition of hands from

right of communicating,” &c.

x Ante expiata delicta, ante exomo-
logesin factam criminis, ante purgatam
conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacer-
dotis (ante offensam placatam indig-
nantis Domini et minantis) vis infer-
tur corpori ejus et sanguini.—[S. Cypr.
de Lapsis. Op., p. 186. ]

y Confiteantur singuli (queso vos
fratres dilecti) ... delictum suum, dum
adhue qui deliquit in seculo est; dum
admitti confessio ejus potest; dum

the bishop and clergy receive

satisfactio et remissio facta per sacer-
dotes apud Dominum grata est.—[Id.,
ibid., pp. 190, 191.]

7 Nam cum in minoribus peccatis
agant peccatores pcenitentiam justo
tempore, et secundum discipline ordi-
nem ad exomologesin veniant, et per
manus impositionem episcopi et cleri
jus communicationis accipiant, &c.—
[Id. Epist. ix. (x. ed. Pamel.) ad Pres-
byteros, 18. |

St. Ireneus, to the power of excommunication. 393

From these two passages it manifestly appears that it was
the practice of the Church in the age of St. Cyprian to debar
sinners from the Eucharist ; to lay them under ecclesiastical
censures till they had performed the penance imposed upon
them; and after that by imposition of hands, from either the
bishop or presbyter, to admit them to the participation of
the holy Communion.

Having thus shewn from most clear passages both of Ter-
tullian and St. Cyprian that this power of excommunication
was administered in the third century, let us go farther back
to the fathers of the second, and even of the first century,
who all acknowledge the same discipline.

St. Irenzus relates* that the wife of a certain deacon hav-
ing been corrupted and defiled by Marcion the heretic (and
magician), did at last, by the great labour of her friends, re-
turn to a good life, and “spent all her time in confessing,
and lamenting, and bewailing the defilement which she had
suffered from the magician.” The word é£oworoynovs, as Mo-
rinus learnedly observes, sometimes denotes only that part of
penance which we commonly call confession: but sometimes
it signifies the whole course of penance, finished and perfect
in all its parts; and in my opinion confession is to be taken
in this latter sense, and then Irenzus’s meaning will be that
this unhappy woman was never reconciled to the Church,
but spent all the remaining part of her life in penance,
prayers, tears, and fasting. And indeed this agrees perfectly
well with the discipline of the primitive Church, which never
admitted the more grievous sinners (such as idolaters and
the like) to her communion till the very moment before their
death. No man of learning, and conversant in the sacred
monuments of the Church, can doubt but this passage of
St. Irenzeus does abundantly prove that the power of excom-
munication obtained at that time. It will not be foreign to
my purpose to write down what Feuardentius has observed
upon the place. “The Greek and Latin fathers,” says he”,

$ post baptismum se multorum pecca-
torum reum ingenue agnoscit, non so-
lum coram Deo, aut generali facta con-

avth toy Emavra xpdvov e&ouodo-
youmevn diereAeoe, TevOovca kal Opnvod-
oa, ep 1 erabev rd TOD pd-you diapOopa.

—([S. Iren. ady. Her., lib. i. c. 13. § 5.
p- 63.)

b Magno consensu Greci et Latini
patres confessionem illam, qua quis

HICKES,

fessione; sed et coram eis qui ecclesiz
presunt, et que apertam distinctam-
que continet delictorum enumeratio-
nem, exhomologesin vocarunt. Hane

3 E

HUGHES
DISSERT, IV.

APPENDIX,

NO. VIII,

394 Excommunication recognised in the writings of Hermas.

“have very unanimously called that exomologesis or con-
fession by which any one does after baptism ingenuously own
himself to be guilty of many sins, not only before God, or by
making a general confession, but also before the governors
of the Church, so as to comprise an open and distinct enu-
meration of all his offences. And that this is by Christ’s
prescription, and the practice of the Apostles, and the con-
sent of all the Churches throughout the world, a necessary
means to wash away sins, and the second plank as it were
after shipwreck, is evident from this chapter.’ Besides he
cites St. Augustine’s forty-ninth homily*, Tertullian de Peni-
tentia’, and St. Cyprian de Lapsis*. ‘From all which,” as
the very learned Dr. Grabe has judiciously observed, “the
most ancient practice and the usefulness of that kind of con-
fession may be gathered, but not the absolute necessity of it
to wash off the stain of sin’.””

But let us go up a little higher. If I be not mistaken,
St. Hermas in his Pastor will discover to us very clear foot-
steps of this discipline. In his second book, in that section
where he speaks of putting away an adulteress, there is this
passage: “ What if the woman that is put away should re-
pent, and have a mind to return to her husband, shall not
she be received by her husband? And he said to me, Yes,
if her husband shall not receive her he sins, and commits a
great crime; for he ought to receive a sinner that has re-
pented, but not often, for there is but one repentance to the
servants of God&.” Without all controversy this most ancient
writer must be understood concerning the public repentance,
by which a sinner is reconciled to the Church, for he says that

vero Christi preescripto, apostolorum utilitas ejusmodi confessionis, non au-

usu, et universarum per orbem eccle-
siarum consensu, ad eluenda peccata
necessariam remedium esse, et secun-
dam a naufragio tabulam, ex hoe ca-
pite apertum est.—[ Feuardent. not. in
S. Iven., ibid., p. 70. ed. Grab. ]

¢ [S. Aug. Sermo ccexcii. ad conju-
gatos (al. Quing. Homil. xlix.) § 8.
Op., tom. v. col. 1504, E. ]

¢ [Tantum relevat, &c.—Tertull. de
Peenit., c. 8, 9. Op., pp. 126, D. 127,
A.]

€ [Videt ille corda, &e.—S, Cyprian.
de Lapsis. Op., p. 190. ]

‘ Ex his usus antiquissimus, atque

tem absoluta ad eluendam peccatorum
maculam necessitas colligi potest.—
(Grab. Annot. in S. Iren., ibid., ed.
Oxon. 1702. ]

g Quid si mulier dimissa peniten-
tiam egerit et voluerit ad virum suum
reverti, nonne recipietur a viro suo? et
dixit mihi, imo, si non receperit eam
vir suus, peccat, et magnum peccatum
sibi admittit: sed debet recipere pecca-
tricem, que pcenitentiam egit; sed non
sepe; seryis enim Dei peenitentia una
est.—S. Hermez Pastor., lib. ii. mand.
4, [Patr. Apost., tom. i, pp. 87, sqq. |

In what the error of the Novatians consisted. 395

there is but one repentance to the servants of God: now
who ever affirmed that of private repentance, which regards
God only? Nay, the Novatians themselves granted that in
the infinite mercy of God there was hope placed for all men,
even for the most grievous sinners; but they denied that
after baptism any one guilty of very grievous sins ought to
be received to the communion of the Church. Daillé, to the
best of my remembrance, or Blondel, or one of that famous
triumvirate who have waged a most deadly war against the
holy fathers, accuses St. Hermas of Novatianism for this one
sentence, that “there is only one repentance to the servants
of God.” But the learned man is under a wretched mis-
take, and seems not to have sufficiently comprehended in
what chiefly the error of Novatian consisted. Both the
Catholics and the Novatians acknowledge that all sins what-
soever are wholly washed away and abolished by the most
wholesome laver of baptism; but the Novatians maintain that
a man falling after baptism into a grievous and mortal sin
has no hope left, that there is no returning for him into the
Church; from which, therefore, they utterly cast him out,
and think he is to be left to the mercy of God only. On the
contrary, it was always asserted by the Catholic Church that
repentance is not to be denied to any sinner, and that the
gates of the Church ought always to lie open to all contrite
hearts and truly humble souls. Yet we must own that many,
very many of the most ancient fathers, were of opinion that
it was not by any means safe to allow a second repentance
to idolaters and such like grievous sinners. Of this number
was St. Hermas Pastor: but consider the vast difference be-
tween the Novatians and the Catholics. The Novatians
allowed of no repentance after baptism: the Catholics per-
mitted one repentance to all, even the most grievous sin-
ners: and some that were of a milder disposition than ordi-
nary, and more sensible of the weakness of human nature,
indulged a frequent repetition of that repentance. But let us
hear what Petavius, a man of very great learning, determines
concerning the error of Novatian, in his notes upon Epipha-
nius, where he treats of that heresy. “ We must know®,”

h Sciendum est non pro eo, quod cam pacem admittendos negarent, No-
lapsos ad communionem et ecclesiasti- vatum et Novatianum hereticos habi-

HUGHES
DISSERT. IV.

396 Apost. Canons shew the general use of excommunication.

APPENDIX: -SAY8 he, “that Novatus and Novatian were accounted he-

———— reties, and banished from the Catholic Church, not be-
cause they denied that the lapsed were to be admitted to
the communion and peace of the Church, but because they
perfidiously and inhumanly asserted that the Church had no
right to reconcile such and forgive them. ‘The Novatians, I
say, were condemned as heretics, because, to omit their other
errors, they took the power of the keys, as it is called, away
from the Church and clergy. Otherwise to banish for ever
from the Church the lapsed, that is, such as were polluted
with the contagion of idolatry, was not as yet known to be
an heretical decree. Besides, that in those ancient and
flourishing times of the Church some certain degrees of sin-
ners were banished from communion, and that for ever, is
declared by very many councils and testimonies of the holy
fathers.” Thus that great author Petavius, who as he was
conversant in all sorts of learning, so there is none in which
he did not excel.

Therefore there is no reason to accuse St. Hermas of No-
vatianism. For this certainly we are obliged to him, that he
has so evidently proved public penance to have been both
known and practised in the very times of the Apostles.

All this may be confirmed from the apostolical canons, as
they are commonly called. That the Apostles themselves
were the authors of these canons no man in his wits can so
much as dream. But that they are very ancient, and con-
tain the usages of the primitive Church in the second and
third centuries, has been demonstrated by so many and such
convincing arguments by the great Bishop Beveridgei, that
there is not the least room left to doubt it. The twelfth
canon is in these words*: “If any clergyman or laic that is

tos, atque ab ecclesia catholica proscrip- _ illis florentis ecclesiz temporibus, cer-

tos fuisse; sed quod nullum ad eos
reconciliandos, condonandaque delicta
jus in ecclesia esse perfidiose et cru-
deliter asseverarent. Quod, inquam,
clavium, ut vocant, potestatem ecclesiz
ac sacerdotibus detraherent, ut reliquos
eorundem errores omittam, Novatiani
heretici damnati sunt.” Alioquin lap-
sos, id est, idololatrize contagione pol-
Jutos, in perpetuum ab ecclesia sum-
movere, nondum pro heretico decreto
cognitum fuerat. Quinetiam priscis

tis peccatorum generibus communione
interdictum, et quidem perpetuo fuisse,
quamplurima concilia, et sanctorum
patrum testimonia declarant.—[{ Dion.
Petavii Animad. ad Her. lix. Nova-
tian. ad cale. S. Epiph. Op., tom. ii.

SPH

i |Codex Canonum Ecclesize Primi-
tive Vindicatus, Gul. Beveregio. Lond.
1678; Oxford, 1848.]

k ef Tis KAnpikos ?) Aaikds apwpiouE-
vos, #rot &dekros, ameAOwy ev ErEpy m6-

_ This could only arise from Apostolic institution. 397

excommunicated, or not yet received into communion, shall
go and be received in another city without communicatory
letters, let both him that receives him be excommunicated
and him that is received. But if he were excommunicated
before let his excommunication be extended to a longer time.”
From this single canon may be drawn a new argument,
grounded on those letters of form which the canon styles
ypadmmata cvotatika, “communicatory” or “ recommenda-
tory letters.’ By the use of these letters those venerable
prelates did admirably consult the unity of the Church. He
that communicated with any one Church had right to com-
municate with all the Churches dispersed and scattered over
all the face of the whole earth. He that was cut off from
any one Church could be received by no other. Now from
whence was this? Whence came it that all the Churches
throughout the world agreed in this point, to preserve so
strict an unity among themselves? That they all exercised
the same discipline, so that what was done by any one of
them was ratified and confirmed by all the rest? From
whence, I say, did this proceed? From a certain private
contract made amongst the primitive Christians, says Mr.
Selden, that most bitter enemy to the authority of the
Church. But how does Mr. Selden prove this? With what
testimonies does he defend this new conjecture of his? With
none at all. At what time was this compact made? That
he does not know. Which of the holy fathers and of the
ecclesiastical historians make any mention of this famous
compact? Not so much as one of them. Can there be any
time assigned wherein the Christian Church did not main-
tain this unity and exercise this discipline? No such mat-
ter. Therefore, with good Mr. Selden’s leave, I shall be of
the same opinion with St. Augustine, that that whose original
we cannot trace out, and which is owing to no decrees of
councils, but has obtained all over the whole Christian world,
I shall believe, I say, with St. Augustine, that “that was not
instituted by man, but delivered down by the Apostles them-

selves!”

Act OexO7 avel ypaupdtwy cvotatinay, Apost. xii. Concilia, tom. i. col. 28, B.]
apopilecbw kal 6 betduevos, Kal 6 dex- ! [Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec
Gels. cf BE Apwpiomevos ety (al. 7), eme- _conciliis institutum, sed semper reten-
TewerOw avrg 6 dpopicuds.—[Can. tum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica

HUGHES
DISSERT. IV.

APPENDIX.

No. VII.

398 Apostolical Constitutions and Canons of Councils.

Nor indeed are the Apostolic Constitutions to be passed
by unmentioned in this controversy. Not that I think that
they were either written by the Apostles, or collected into
one body by St. Clement, as a certain crazed mathematician™
is now undertaking to prove. But it was always the opinion
of learned men that many most useful monuments of anti-
quity are preserved in these Constitutions, which explain
and illustrate the rites and customs of the third and fourth
centuries. It is indeed no contemptible consideration that
all the second book of these Constitutions is employed wholly
in this one argument. The whole purpose of it is to inform
the bishops how they ought to behave themselves, both in
condemning and punishing sins; from which it easily ap-
pears what was the opinion of the Church in those ages con-
cerning this controversy.

2ndly. That the Christian Church had the right of excom-
munication is also most evident from the penitential canons,
which the primitive Church established. The council of
Eliberis, if we credit Baronius, was convened in the year of
our Lord 305", in the times of Constantius and Galerius.
That which was chiefly done in this council was to appoint
certain and stated times of penance for almost all the more
grievous sins. It was there decreed ‘that idolaters were
not to receive the communion®, even at the point of death ;
that he which should not come to church for three Sundays
together should be suspended from communion so long time
as that he might appear sufficiently rebuked ; that if the faith-

traditum rectissime creditur.—S. Aug.
de Bapt. cont. Donat., lib. iv. c. 24.§ 31.
Op., tom. ix. col. 140, C.}

m {Whiston is the person referred to;
see his Directions for the study of Divi-
nity, appended to his Sermons, p. 296.
Lond., 1709, where he includes the
Apostolical Constitutions in the canon
of the New Testament; see Whiston’s
Memoirs, p. 131; and the Historical
Preface prefixed to his Primitive Chris-
tianity revived, particularly A Letter to
the Archbishop, Jan. 1708-9, p. Ixxxii.,
and the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge,
Feb. 22, 1709-10, ibid., pe X13) anda
form for the Baptism of Infants agree-
able to the Constitutions of the Apo-
stles, which he used in baptizing a
child in June 1710. Hughes, the writer

of these Dissertations, was the chief
promoter and witness in the proceed-
ing against Whiston for publicly teach-
ing Arian doctrine, Oct. 22, 1710, ibid.,
p- CXXXVii., CXXxix. |

n [See above, vol. ii. p. 40, note p. ]

© (Idolatras) nee in fine communi-
onem accipere (judicabant.)—[ Cone.
Eliberitanum, Can. i. Concilia, tom, i,
col. 992, B.]

(Qui) [in civitate positus] (per) tres
Dominicas [ad] ecclesiam non acces-
serit, tauto (al. pauco) tempore absti-
neat, ut correptus esse videatur.—
[Canon xxi. ibid., col. 994, E.]

Si fideles hereticis vel Judzis filias
suas in matrimonium dederint, per
quinquennium abstinere debent.—

[Cauon xvi. ibid. B.}

What Christians underwent from their belief in this. 399

ful give their daughters in marriage to heretics or Jews they avenes
shall be suspended from communion for five years.” To this “"***
council may be added that of Ancyra?, and the first council
of Arles4, assembled under the reign of Constantine, in both
which there are many canons of this nature. Now from all
this it is very easy to collect what was the constant opinion
of the primitive Church concerning excommunication: for
we are not to imagine that the Church of Christ did then
first exercise this power, because we meet with no peniten-
tial canons before those times. I have already proved the
contrary from St. Cyprian, St. Irenzus, and St. Hermas
Pastor. Indeed it always seemed to me a very great argu-
ment that this power of the Church was made use of by
the Apostles themselves, because the whole multitude of the
faithful did so very willingly submit their necks to so heavy
a yoke. Good God! how many, and how great and bitter
mortifications did they endure, before they were permitted
to return to the Church? They spent whole days and
nights in fasting and lying upon the ground; nay, they
employed all their wits to find out various methods of afflict-
ing their souls and macerating their bodies. Nothing could
be put upon them so hard, so grievous, and calamitous, but
what they underwent in triumph, that they might atone for
their sins, and obtain a right to communion. But is it cre-
dible or probable that the whole Christian world would have
so cheerfully and willingly endured such severe mortifications
if they had not been thoroughly persuaded that this was that
very discipline which was instituted by Jesus Christ, the
lover of souls, to be as it were a plank after shipwreck, the
most ready and wholesome cure of sins committed after bap-
tism? Besides I would ask, when did this unworthy and
insupportable yoke begin to be first imposed on the necks of
the primitive Christians? By whose contrivance was it that
this ecclesiastical tyranny first invaded the Christian world?
It is most certain that no man can be found that will be able
to give a clear and distinct answer to this question. I may
likewise add that it seems little less than a miracle that such

P [Cone. Ancyran. (A.D. 314.) Ca- 4 [{Cone. Arelatensis (A.D. 314.)
nones, Concilia, tom. i. col. 1485, sqq.] | Canones, ibid., 1451, sqq. |

APPENDIX.
NO. VIL.

400 Denying the power of excommunication held to be heresy.

a monstrous tyranny should have obtained so far and wide
without any opposition whatsoever. With what madness
was the laity possessed, with what timorousness of mind
captivated, that they yielded so full and easy a victory to
the ambition of the clergy? All this does most forcibly per-
suade us that this power of excommunication, which the
Church always exercised, and without which it cannot sub-
sist, was by no means invented and devised by ecclesiastical
tyrants, but instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, and. deli-
vered down and confirmed by the Apostles.

Thus, if I am not mistaken, I have fully demonstrated
that the Church has always claimed the power of excom-
munication. But,

3rdly. It will add to the force of this argument, if we call
to mind that the primitive Church had so great an esteem for
this power, that they marked all such as disowned it with
the brand of heresy. No man that is not altogether a
stranger to the holy fathers, can be ignorant what was
the opinion of those of the third century concerning Mon-
tanus and Novatian; both those heretics did after the
most friendly manner agree in this one point, to take
away the power of the keys from the Church and clergy.
But herein the Novatians do greatly disagree with the
heretics of our time, that they most freely allowed the
power of excommunicating, and denied only that of recon-
ciling to the Church: whereas these do utterly root up all
power of excommunication, and maintain that even the
most profligate persons imaginable have a right both to
the Church and to the Sacraments. So much both in sub-
tilty and impiety have ours gone beyond the ancient here-
tics.

However, it will by no means be foreign to my purpose,
to shew how, and with what arguments, the holy fathers
disputed against those heretics. And I shall the rather do
this, because the Erastians object nothing against this most
wholesome authority, but what their famous predecessors of
old objected against the primitive Church. Hence also we
shall more clearly and fully understand what were the sen-

timents of the purest antiquity concerning this important
question.

Montanus first denied the Church’s power of forgiveness. 401

1. The first that raised any disturbance upon this occa-
sion was Montanus, who in the reign of Commodus in-
vented many new and pernicious opinions; and falling away
from the Catholic Church, instituted a religion of his own.
Among other things he peremptorily denied, that ‘‘ mortal
sins could be forgiven by the Church'.” This we are in-
formed by Tertullian in his treatise de Pudicitia, which he
composed after himself was become a Montanist ; for what
he wrote concerning the power of the keys in his tract en-
titled Scorpiaces, and in that de Penitentia', is orthodox
enough. “For who,” says he", “forgives sins but God alone ?
to wit, mortal sins, which have been committed against
Him, and against His temple?... Therefore if it should ap-
pear that even the blessed Apostles themselves had par-
doned any such sin, the pardoning of which belonged to
God, and not to man, they must have done that, not by
discipline, but by power: for they also raised the dead,
which only God can do; and gave new strength to the
weak, which none can do but Christ: nay and inflicted
punishments, which Christ would not do.”’ The father here
maintains, according to the opinion of Montanus, that the
Church-never received power of forgiving mortal sins. He
openly declares, that the arguments drawn from the exam-
ples of the Apostles are of no force with him. If the Apo-
stles either bound or loosed a sinner, they did this, says he,
not by discipline, which was to remain always in the Church,
but by their apostolic power, which expired with their
persons. Zephyrinus’, who at that time sat in the see of
Rome, undertook the argument against Tertullian. This
most holy father affirmed that this authority had always
prevailed in the Catholic Church: and was founded in that
most ample commission which our blessed Saviour gave
to St. Peter*. Tertullian, to evade the force of this argu-

peteret ; non ex disciplina, sed ex potes-

® Peccata mortalia ab ecclesia posse
tate fecisse. Nam et mortuos suscita-

remitti.

s [See below, note z. ]

t [Tertull. de Poenit. Op., p. 120.]

" Quis enim dimittit delicta ni so-
lus Deus? et utique mortalia, que in
ipsum fuerint admissa, et in templum
ejus... itaque si et ipsos beatos apo-
stolos tale aliquid indulsisse constaret,
cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine com-

HICKES,

verunt, quod Deus solus, et debiles red-
integraverunt, quod nemo nisi Chris-
tus: imo et plagas inflixerunt, quod
noluit Christus.—Id. de Pudicit., cap.
21, [Op., p. 573, D.]

Y [See ibid., c. 1, p. 555, A, sqq. |

* Matt. xvi. 19.

HUGHES
DISSERT. IV.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

1 [Novatus,
Hughes. }

402 Views of the Catholic Church brought out by Tertullian.

ment, asserts that this power was committed only to St.
Peter, and could not be derived to others. Now this is
apparently contrary both to reason and to the judgment
of the whole Church. Nay our more modern Montanists
and Novatians (for why should they not be adorned with
the same names, since they vend the same opinions?) re-
ject this subterfuge as trivial, and of no weight, and so
expound this place as to make it denote no authority,
distinct from that of preaching the gospel. But these
things following we learn most clearly from Tertullian,
viz., that the Catholic Church assumed to herself a power
of excommunication; and further, that she believed this
power was given to her in that text of St. Matthew’.
Let the reader look into his book de Pudicitia, and that
entitled Scorpiace; and he will easily find, that even Ter-
tullian himself was altogether of another opinion, whilst
he remained within the bosom of the Catholic Church; and
that he was indebted for this error concerning excommuni-
cation to Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. In his Scorpiace
he writes thus’*: “For if you think heaven is still shut,
remember that the Lord has here left the keys to St.
Peter, and by him to the Church; and that every one
that is here examined and confesseth shall carry them with
him.” Behold Tertullian in this passage strenuously con-
tending for that very authority which he wrote against in
his book de Pudicitia.

2. Montanus was followed by Novatian, whose opinion
upon this subject I have explained from the learned Peta-
vius*. Against him St. Pacianus and St. Ambrose disputed
with very great vehemence. But let us see what forces they
brought into the field, and with what art they were drawn
up. St. Pacianus in his Epistle to Sempronianus, a follower
of Novatian!, says these things, which are not unworthy to be
observed. First he introduces Sempronianus cavilling after
this manner: “ You will say, none but God can do this? :” (he

y Matt. xvi. 19. 2 [See above, pp. 395, 396. ]

2 Nam et si adhuc clausum putas > Solus hoc, inquies, Deus poterit:
celum, memento claves ejus hie Do- (scilicet peecata remittere) verum est
minum Petro, et per eum ecclesie reli- ....sed et quod per sacerdotes suos
quisse, quas hic unusquisque interro- facit, ipsius potestas est. Nam quid
gatus atque confessus feret secum.— _ est illud quod apostolis dicit? ‘Que

Tertull. Scorp., c. x. [Op., p. 496, A.] __ ligaveritis in terris, ligata erunt et in

Novatian; and the doctrines taught in opposition to him. 403

speaks of forgiving sins.) Sempronianus, good man, was it
seems most exactly of the same opinion with the sagacious
Maximilla. But St. Pacianus answers him very well: “ It is
true,” says he,.“ but what God does by His priests, is also
His power: for what is that which He says to the Apostles ?
‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven®:? why did He say this, if it was not lawful for
men to bind and loose? Was this only lawful for the
Apostles? Then to baptize also was lawful for none but
them; they only had power to give the Holy Spirit; they
only could cleanse the people from their sins: because all
this was commanded only to the Apostles.” In his third
Epistle to Sempronianus he defends that text in St. Mat-
thew‘ against his objections, and then explains the passage
after this manner®: “ He is loosed by pardon, because he was
bound by sin. He is bound by excommunication, because he
was loosed by faith, and made free by grace.” From these
words of St. Pacianus we are taught, that at that time none
but such as were open heretics, and enemies to the Christian
Church, did in the least doubt but that this passage in St.
Matthew related to excommunication, and to the public dis-
cipline of the Church. There are in these Epistles very many
things which make for this purpose: but these will suffice to
shew the judgment of the primitive Church.

And now let us hear St. Ambrose disputing with the same
adversary. In his first book concerning repentance, he has
these words‘: ‘‘ But they say that they pay reverence to the
Lord, to whom only they reserve the power of forgiving sins.
On the contrary, they do a greater injury to none than to
Him, whose commands they would rescind, and throw back

celis : et quecunque solveritis in ter-
ris, soluta erunt et in ceelis.’ Cur hoc,
si ligare hominibus ac solvere non lice-
bat? An tantum hoe solis apostolis li-
cet? Ergo et baptizare solis licet, et
Spiritum Sanctum dare solis, et solis
gentium peccata purgare: quia totum
hoc non aliis quam apostolis impera-
tum est.—[S. Pacian. (cire. A.D. 372.)
Epist. 1. ad Sympronianum, § 6. ap.
Bibl. Patr. Galland., tom. vii. p. 259, B. |

4 Matt. xvi. 19.

€ Solvitur venia, quia peccato tene-
batur ; ligatur anathemate, quia solutus
erat fide, per gratiam liberatus.—[S.
Pacian. Epist. ili. § 11. ibid., p. 265, A. ]

f Sed aiunt se Domino referre reve-
rentiam, cui soli remittendorum crimi-
num potestatem reservent. Immo nulli
majorem injuriam faciunt, quam qui
ejus (al. ei cujus) volunt mandata re-
scindere,commissum munus refundere.
Nam cum ipse in evangelio suo dix-
erit Dominus Jesus: ‘Accipite Spiritum
Sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata,

HUGHES
DISSERT. IV.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

404 St. Ambrose on the power of forgiving and retaining sins.

the power He has committed to them: for seeing that the
Lord Jesus Himself has said in His gospel, ‘ Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re-
tained :’ which of the two honours Him most? he that obeys
His commands, or he that resists them? The Church doth
in both respects preserve her obedience, as well in binding
sin, as in loosing it: but (the Novatian) heretics, unmerciful
in one regard, and disobedient in the other, desire to bind
what they may not loose, and will not loose what they have
bound. And herein their opinion is condemned by itself;
for it was the intention of the Lord, that the power of loos-
ing and that of binding should be equal, because He equally
permitted both. He therefore that has not the power of
loosing, has not the power of binding neither: for as accord-
ing to the Lord’s intention, he that has the power of binding
has the power of loosing also, so their assertion destroys
itself, insomuch that because they deny themselves the power
of loosing, they ought also to deny themselves the power of
binding. How therefore can the one be lawful and the other
not lawful? For both are lawful to them to whom the power
is given: and to them to whom it is not given both are un-
lawful: wherefore it is certain that both are lawful to the
Church, and that both are unlawful to heretics. For this
power is permitted only to priests; and therefore is rightly
claimed by the Church, which hath true priests; and here-

remittuntur eis: et quorum detinueri-
tis, detenta erunt:’ Quis est ergo qui
magis honorat; utrum qui mandatis
obtemperat, an qui resistit? Ecclesia
in utroque servat obedientiam ut pec-
catum et alliget et relaxet. He-
resis in altero immitis, in altero in-
obediens, vult ligare quod non resol-
vat, non vult solvere quod ligavit. In
quo se sua damnat sententia: Do-
minus enim par jus et solvendi esse
voluit et ligandi, qui utrumque pari
conditione permisit. Ergo qui solvendi
jus non habet, nee ligandi habet. Sicut
enim secundum dominicam sententiam,
qui ligandi jus habet, et solvendi habet:
ita istorum assertio seipsam strangu-
lat, ut quia solvendi sibi jus negant,
negare debeant et ligandi. Quomodo
igitur potest alterum licere, alterum
non licere? Quibus donatum utrum-

que est, aut utrumque licere manifes-
tum est, aut utrumque non licere cer-
tum est. Ecclesiz utrumque licet,
hzresi utrumque non licet. (Quibus
datum, utrumque est licere; at quibus
non datum, utrumque non licere; cer-
tum est ecclesiz utrumque licere, he-
resi utrumque non licere. ed. Rom.)
Jus enim hoc solis permissum sacerdo-
tibus est. Recte igitur hoe ecclesia
vendicat, que veros sacerdotes habet :
hzeresis vendicare non potest, que (ve-
ros ed. Rom.) sacerdotes Dei non ha-
bet.... Specta etiam illud, quoniam
qui Spiritum Sanctum accepit, et sol-
vendi peccati potestatem, et ligandi
accepit, sic enim scriptum est: ‘ Acci-
pite Spiritum Sanctum, &c.’ Ergo qui
solvere non potest peccatum, non ha-
bet Spiritum Sanctum. Munus Spiritus
Sancti est officium sacerdotis; jus au-

Summary of the argument on excommunication. 405

tics, who have no true priests, can lay no claim to it.” And
after a few words: “Consider also this, that he who receives
the Holy Ghost, receives power both of loosing and binding
sin: for thus it is written, ‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ &c.
Therefore he that cannot loose sin, has not the Holy Ghost.
The office of the priest is the gift of the Holy Ghost; and
the property of the Holy Ghost is to loose and bind sins.”

Nothing could be expected more clear and evident for our
purpose than this, and you will find almost the same in the
sixth chapter of this book’. Both St. Ambrose and St. Paci-
anus do most plainly attest, that the primitive Church always
looked upon this power of binding and excommunicating as
committed to her from God. But to sum up the whole argu-
ment in a few words.

It is manifest from the nature of society, that the right
of excommunication belongs to the Christian Church: and
since the Church of Christ was founded by God Himself, it
is also manifest that this right of excommunication belongs
to the Church by divine right. The power of binding and of
loosing is committed by our Saviour Jesus Christ to St. Peter
in most express words, and in him to the whole Church.
That this power of binding and loosing consisted in recon-
ciling penitents, was always the opinion of the Catholic
Church, even in the purest ages. The Christian Church
has always exercised this power, from the very times of the
Apostles; and has exercised it as a power committed to her
by Jesus Christ Himself. This is abundantly evident, both
from the clearest testimonies of the holy fathers, and from
those penitential canons which have in every age been esta-
blished in all Churches. All persons whatsoever that have
attempted either to take away or to diminish this sacred au-
thority have been ever accounted heretics by the Church, and
she has always banished them from her communion. And now
after all this, let such as are impartial judges determine what
is to be thought concerning the power of excommunication
in the Christian Church. Does it imply any contradiction ?
Is a spiritual government distinct from the civil to be ac-

tem Spiritus Sancti in solvendis ligan- col. 391, E. 392, D.]
disque criminibus est.—[S. Ambros. de ® [Id., ibid., c. vii. § 38. col. 399, C.
Peenit., lib. i. c. 2.§ 6—8. Op., tom. ii. ed. Ben. |

HUGHES

406 The proper effect of absolution to the truly penitent.

arrenpix, counted monstrous or ridiculous ? Ought it to be looked upon

as severe and cruel to shut out even the most wicked per-
sons from the holy Eucharist ? For my part I am thoroughly
persuaded that this most wholesome discipline was not in-
vented by the bishops, but instituted by Jesus Christ Him-
self, for the comfort and salvation of our souls. And indeed
I clearly perceive that the Christian religion can never shine
with her own native brightness, till by the pious severity of
her clergy this sacred discipline be revived. I cannot con-
clude better than in the words of St. Gregory Nyssen":
“Do not think,” says he, “that excommunication is owing
to the arrogance of bishops; it is a law of our fathers, an
ancient canon of the Church, which had its rise from the
law, and its confirmation from the gospel.”

But here I cannot forbear adding something concerning
the proper effect of sacerdotal absolution ; a thing which has
a very great relation to the question before us. For there
are a great many very good men to be found, and those not
unlearned, who reject all absolution from the priest, at least
as a thing indifferent, because they are not able to conceive
in their mind what is the effect of such kind of absolution.
They argue with themselves after this manner: the truly
penitent and contrite sinner is in the court of conscience
immediately absolved of God and justified. What therefore
does the priest add to this divine absolution? Does God, the
searcher of hearts, wait for the sentence of the priest? We
cannot think that. In order to answer this objection I shall
clearly and distinctly set down, what was the opinion of the
ancients concerning the effect of absolution.

It is most certain that the primitive Church never ac-
counted asinner to be justified, however humble and contrite,
till he had obtained sacerdotal absolution. Nor indeed does
this seem to me in the least wonderful. All men allow the
same thing in the Sacrament of Baptism. No person is
worthy to come to Baptism, unless he be of a pure and clean
heart; one that from his soul abominates all kind of sin,
and is most stedfastly resolved to conform his life to the law

h wh emokomuns avOadelas elva vo- piti.—[S. Greg. Nyss. adv. eos qui cas-
, aR . . eee
Mlons Toy apopitudy’ matpéos 6 vduos, tigationes egre ferunt. Op., tom. iii.
madras THs ekkAnolas Kavdy, awd TOD p. 315, B.}
> / ~
vouou apiduevos, kal kpatamels TH Xa-

The necessity of absolution parallel to that of baptism. 407

of the gospel. And yet even all this does not justify him in
the sight of God. Baptism is still wanting, without which
remission of sins cannot be obtained in the ordinary way.
If such a person should die before he had put off the old
man by washing in this sacred water, he would by the prin-
ciples of the gospel have no right to the kingdom of heaven.
It is another question what the God of mercies would deter-
mine in his regard, through the meritorious blood of Jesus
Christ, which was plentifully shed for the whole race of man-
kind. And why may we not judge the same concerning re-
pentance? Hence it is that the ancient fathers were wont
to call repentance a second baptism. But I shall give you
the opinion of the most holy fathers upon this subject in the
words of Morinus, a very learned man, to whom I most wil-
lingly acknowledge myself indebted in many things.

“God therefore,” says he’, ‘is the author of reconcilia-
tion, and the priest is the minister of it. What does the
priest effect? That which God, by the assistance of His Holy
Spirit, had begun in the penitent before reconciliation, the
priest does by absolution ministerially finish, according to
that ministerial power committed to him in those words,
(‘ Whatsoever ye shall bind,’ &c.:) and such as are worthy
of divine absolution he does actually and visibly absolve.”
Thus Morinus. And that this was the opinion of the primi-
tive Church is most abundantly manifest from Tertullian,
St. Cyprian, St. Pacianus, and St. Ambrose.

DISSERTATION V.

THE LAITY NEVER RECEIVED THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S
SUPPER WITHOUT HAVING IT FIRST CONSECRATED BY PRIESTS.

Now I am treating about the authority and dignity of the
Christian clergy, I think it will not be foreign to my purpose

* Reconciliationis igitur primus au-
tor Deus, minister sacerdos. Quid ope-
ratur sacerdos? Quod Deus in peeni-
tente, per auxilia Spiritus Sancti, ante
reconciliationem inchoaverat, sacerdos
per absolutionem ministerialiter perfi-
cit, juxta potestatem ministerialem ei

concessam: ‘ Quzcunque ligaverilis,’
&c., dignosque divina absolutione re-
apse et visibiliter absolvit.—t[Is. Mo-
rinus de Administratione Sacramenti
Peenitentiz, lib. viii. c. 5. § 5. p. 520.
Par. 1651. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT, IV.

408 The distinction of clergy and laity shewn from Scripture.

appenpix. to say something here in short concerning that signal differ-

xe YE" ence between the clergy and the laity. Rigaltius, a man
indeed of indefatigable pains, and a very great critic, but
not very accurate, and wonderfully fond of new observations,
whatever they are, has in his remarks upon the second Epistle
of St. Cyprian *, out of his innate fondness of producing some-
thing new and unheard of, asserted that in the apostolic
times there was no such distinction, but that by the word
clergy, «Afjpos, the whole Christian Church was always de-
noted. Indeed he owns that in the age of Tertullian and
St. Cyprian this word was wholly appropriated to ecclesias-
tical persons; but, good man, he is pleased to ascribe that
to the pride and ambition of the priests. And in this he has
been closely followed by all such as are no friends either to
our sacred order or to the Christian religion. Hence it is
that this objection against us which has been so often made
and answered, is now with the greatest triumph revived by
this most impudent scoffer, who has thrown upon us with
great vehemence all the calumnies both of the atheists
and Socinians: but there will be no difficulty im confuting
the unlearned rashness of the great man from whom he
copies. For,

Ist. It is manifest that Jesus Christ appointed twelve
Apostles to preach the gospel, to found and govern the
Church, and to administer the Sacraments. It is also most
evident from a thousand places of holy Scripture, and parti-
cularly from St. Paul’s Epistles to Titus and Timothy, that
these Apostles chose others, conspicuous for their faith, doc-
trine, and piety; and by imposition of hands consecrated
them to perform the same offices, to declare salvation to all
men through the blood of Christ, to gather Churches, to re-
ceive, and feed, and confirm them with the Sacraments ; and
(what is most worthy of our observation in this controversy)
with the same ceremony, viz., imposition of hands, to ordain
and consecrate others, as the necessity of the Church should
require. What, I beseech you, can be more clear and evi-
dent than this? And therefore since the thing itself appears
so plainly and fully from sacred writ, why should we cavil

k [See Annot. in S. Cypr., Epist. ii. ap, Annot. in eand. Epist. (viii. ed.
ed. N. Rigalt. pp. 7, 8, Par. 1666. et Oxon.) p.-15. Oxon. 1682. ]

Words of St. Clem. Rom. on the same subject, examined. 409

about words and syllables? Grant that neither the word uvenes
clergy nor laity can be found, either in the holy Scriptures, a
or in the most ancient monuments of the Church: what
then? What can be argued from thence? Nothing at all.
The word is wanting, but the thing for which we contend
occurs very frequently.

2ndly. Let us proceed to the monuments of the primitive
Church, and see whether no footsteps of this distinction are
to be found among the most ancient writers.

The first I will produce shall be St. Clemens Romanus, a
man truly apostolic, and mentioned with very great honour
by St. Paul himself!. In this father’s most excellent Epistle
to the Corinthians we have these words™: “ For to the high-
priest are given proper functions, and a proper place is ap-
pointed for the priests, and proper ministries are incumbent
upon the Levites. The layman is bound by lay precepts.”
In this passage laymen are most clearly distinguished from
clergymen or ecclesiastical persons. But I know very well
that there are great controversies made concerning the true
and genuine sense of this passage. The advocates for epi-
scopacy cite these words of St. Clement in proof of the three
orders, and object them to our adversaries. Nor indeed is
this opinion without foundation. But they who maintain a
parity of orders, do strenuously contend that these words do
by no means belong to the Christian Church, but that this
writer had regard only to the Church of Jerusalem: nor in-
deed are they destitute of weighty reasons with which to sup-
port this opinion of theirs. To determine this controversy does
not belong either to this place or to my present purpose.
Whatever was St. Clement’s meaning I shall easily shew what
Iwish'. Let us therefore suppose that in this passage the le
father speaks of the Jewish Church; it must of necessity be 3; quid ve-
granted me that the similitude of which he makes use apper- rahe
tains to the Church of Christ: so that the same distinction
which had been made between the Jewish clergy and laity, did
also obtain between the clergy and laity among the Christians.
Otherwise the reasoning of this apostolic writer would be lame

1 Phil. iv. 3. Siaxoviaa emixewrar’ 6 Aaikds vOpwmos

™ 7G yap apxtepet idiar Aevroupylat tots Aaikots mpoordymacr Sédera.—S.
Sedouevan eiol, nal rots icpedow tds 5 Clem. R., Epist. i. c. 40. Patr, Apost.,
Témos mpoorérakrat, Kal Aevirais idia: tom. i. p. 170.]

HICKES, 38a

APPENDIX.
NO. VIII.

1 | what, ed.
3

2
e

[by lot,
d. 3.]

410 St. Clem. Alex. mentions the clergy as a distinct order.

and imperfect, and of no force. Inflamed with a true Christian
charity he exhorts the Corinthians to follow after peace, and
to perform all things according to the divine appointment :
and alleges this as a most forcible reason for their so doing,
viz., that God Himself had instituted this very order of
things; had distributed proper functions to the high-priest,
appointed the priests their own station, and the Levites their
proper ministries: and the laity were subject to lay-precepts
which became them as laics. But if we obstinately deny
that there was the same distinction in the Christian Church,
which no man doubts there was among the Jews; of what
force, I desire to know, will this reasoning be against the
schismatical Corinthians? It remains therefore a certain
and unshaken truth that this distinction between the clergy
and the laity obtained in the times of St. Clement, who
flourished in the year of our Lord 56.

Next to him I produce St. Clement of Alexandria, a most
celebrated writer of the second century. He in a certain
little treatise lately published at Oxford", and entitled, Tis o
owlomevos tAovatos ; ‘ What rich man can be saved?” gives
a most ample testimony to this truth. Speaking of St. John,
who was returned to Ephesus from his banishment, he has
these words®: ‘ Being desired also he went to the neighbour-
ing provinces ; both! to constitute bishops; and to form and
regulate whole Churches; and likewise to set apart for the
clergy’ whomsoeverthe Holy Spirit should direct.” Thatis, he
chose into the number of the clergy such, as by manifestations
of the Spirit, very usual at that time, he understood to be fit
for that office. It is certain therefore beyond all controversy,
that Clemens Alexandrinus did most fully own this distinc-
tion between the laity and the clergy. It were superfluous
to descend to Tertullian and St. Cyprian; for Rigaltius
himself acknowledges that this distinction prevailed in the
third century.

Having now proved that there obtained a true and proper

" [S. Clem. Alex., Quis Dives, &e., legimus cum Eusebio, nam perperam
cap. 42. p. 110. Oxon. 1683. | KAjpov habet editio Oxoniensis) eva yé
Gamer mapakadovmevos Kal eml Ta Twa kKAnpdowr tev bed mvEevmaTos O7N-
TANTUXwpaTaey evar, brov uev emiokd- —wauvouevwv.—ld., ibid., ap. Euseb. Hist.
fous KaTaTTHowY, dmov 5& Bras exkAyn- Kecl., lib. iii. cap. 23. [p. 113.]
clas apucowy, Omou Se KAypw (ita enim

Consecration necessary to the efficacy of the Eucharist. 411

distinction between the clergy and the laity, I shall come

up closer to the question in dispute; and prove that the *

laity never received the holy Eucharist till it was first con-
secrated by priests. And this question consists of two parts:
for it must be first proved, that consecration is necessary in
order that the elements of bread and wine may become the
body and blood of Christ to the faithful receiver: after which
I shall shew that the right of consecrating the elements can
belong to none but priests, regularly and lawfully ordained
by a bishop.

I. Now to prove that consecration is necessarily required
to the effectual administration of this holy Sacrament, I
think it proper to begin from the very institution of it, which
St. Luke gives us in these words’: “ And He (our blessed
Saviour) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and
gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for
you: do this in remembrance of Me.” I maintain, that
this command of our Lord Jesus Christ has regard to the
whole action, so as to comprehend the very words of conse-
cration. Jesus Christ having taken bread, blessed it, that is,
set it apart from common use, and consecrated it to a holy
mystery. This must necessarily be granted me from the
principles of the Jews, who always accounted that bread and
wine were set apart and consecrated by such benedictions.
Our blessed Saviour commands that the Apostles should do
that, which they here saw done by Him. That they should
do what? What was it which they saw Him do? They saw
Him take bread into His hands, and consecrate this bread
by a certain solemn form of benediction. For this very
reason the cup is called by St. Paul, “the cup of blessings.”
And what is to be understood by the word “ blessing,” will
be easily learned from the holy fathers, who frequently
used the words that we render “ blessing,” “invocation",” &c.,
to signify consecration.

But here the Socinians object, that all this is not clear
and perspicuous; that these words may be understood in
another sense, and admit of another interpretation. Grant

pP Kal AaBady &prov evxapiothoas @ pynow. Luke xxii. 19.
KkAage’ Kal bwKey avtois Aéywy, Tovrd 4 +b Tworhpioy THs evAoyias. 1 Cor.
éort TH cud pov, To bmep tuav Sdd- x. 16.
uevov’ TovrO moleiTe cis THY euhy ave~ ® ebAoyla, evAdyyots, émlkAnots.

HUGIIES
DISSERT, VY.

APPENDIX.

NO, VIII.

412 St. Ireneus and Origen on the necessity of Consecration

they may: yet I may be allowed to affirm thus much; that
this exposition of ours is very probable, and most agreeable
to the principles of the apostolic age. Nay I maintain, that
no other interpretation of these words can be invented, which
shall either be more probable than this of ours, or more suit-
able to the purpose of our Saviour. And indeed that this
is the true and only meaning of the text, I conclude from
hence, that the primitive Church always taught and under-
stood it in this sense. And this I will now make good by a
cloud of most unquestionable witnesses.

And first let us hear St. Irenzus, St. Polycarp’s contem-
porary, a most egregious asserter of apostolic tradition. In
his fourth book, being to prove against the Marcionites, that
Jesus Christ was the Son of the one true God, who made
the world, and instituted the law of Moses for the Jews, he
draws his argument from the oblation of the Eucharist : “ And
our opinion,” says he’, ‘‘is agreeable to the Eucharist, and the
Eucharist does reciprocally confirm our opinion: for we offer
unto the Lord those things which are His, congruously
declaring the communication and the unity both of the flesh
and spirit.” And then follow these words: “For as the bread
which is from the earth, partaking of the invocation of God,
is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of
two things, an earthly and an heavenly: so also our bodies
partaking of the Eucharist are no longer mere corruptible
bodies, but have hope of a resurrection.” In this passage
the holy father does most expressly assert that the bread is
made the Eucharist, that is, the body of Jesus Christ, by the
invocation of God, to wit, by consecration, as will appear
more fully in the sequel. In his fifth book the same holy
father disputes against Valentinus, and maintains that Jesus
Christ assumed the human nature truly and really, and not
only “in appearance',” as some heretics dreamed. And to
prove this also he applies the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

S Nostra autem consonans est sen-
tentia Eucharistiz, et Eucharistia rur-
sus confirmat sententiam nostram. Of-
ferimus enim ei que sunt ejus, con-
gruenter communicationem et unitatem
predicantes carnis et spiritus. Quem-
admodum enim qui est a terra panis
percipiens invocationem Dei, jam non

communis panis est, sed Eucharistia,
ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et
ceelesti: sic et corpora nostra percipi-
entia Eucharistiam, jam non sunt cor-
ruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia.
—S. Iren. cont. Her., lib. iv. [cap. 18.
p. 251. ]

t pavTarTiK@s.

to make the elements the Body and Blood of Christ. 418

“ And thus,” says he, “to wit, according to these things, venns
neither has the Lord redeemed us with His blood; nor is ~~
the cup of the Eucharist the communication of His blood;
nor the bread which we break the communication of His
body".” And a little after he has these words: “ When,
therefore, both the bread broken and the cup mixed have
partaken of the word of God, they become the Eucharist of
the body and blood of Christ, by which the substance of our
flesh is increased, and of which it consists.” In the former
passage the bread was made the Eucharist by “ the invocation
of God,” but here it is by “ partaking of God’s word.” They
mutually illustrate and confirm each other. And does not
all this make very much for the necessity of consecration ?
Is not St. Irenzeus to be looked upon as a better and a safer
interpreter of the meaning of the Apostles than five hundred
of our modern critics, who propose to themselves nothing
more than with their most wise comments to raise mists
about what is clear and perspicuous ; when things are diffi-
cult and obscure, to make them more obscure on set pur-
pose; and to weaken and undermine whatever the Catholic
Church has always looked upon as firm and settled.

Origen, in his Commentary upon St. Matthew, calls the
Eucharist “bread sanctified by the word of God and by
prayer*.” A little after which he proceeds in this manner:
«« And the food sanctified by the word of God and by prayer,
according to its material part indeed goes into the belly, and
is cast out into the draught; but with regard to the prayer
made over it, according to the analogy of faith it becomes
profitable.” Hence we learn that the elements of bread
and wine are not only consecrated by prayer, but (if we give

« Si autem non salvetur hee (al.
sic autem secundum hec) videlicet,
nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit
nos, neque calix Eucharistia commu-
nicatio sanguinis ejus est, neque panis
quem frangimus communicatio cor-
poris ejus est.—Id., ibid., lib. v.c. 2. § 2.
[p. 293.] Quando ergo et mixtus ca-
lix et factus (al. fractus) panis per-
cipit verbum Dei, et fit Eucharistia
sanguinis et corporis Christi, ex qui-
bus augetur et consistit carnis nostrz
substantia. [démdére oby Kal Td KeKxpa-
bévoy mothpiov, Kal 6 yeyovws uptos
émidéxeTar Tov Adyov Tov Geo, Kal

yiverar h edxapiotia caua Xpiorov, ek
Tovtayv b& avter Kal ouvicrara 4 THs
capkos nuav irdoraots.—Id., ibid., § 3.
p. 294: |

x amd Tov ayiagbevtos Adyw Peod Kah
évteviews tptov... kal Td ayiatdmevoy
Bp&ua 81a Adyou Oeod Kal evteviews,
Kate avTd mev TO bALKOY Eis THY KOLALaY
xwpet, Kal eis apedpava exBddArerat,
Kata de Thy emvyevomerny avT@ evxhy,
Kata Thy avadroylay THs TloTEews wpéeAt-
pov ylverat.—t{ Origen. Comment. in
Matt., tom. xi. § 14, Op., tom. ili. p. 499,
D, E.]

414 St. Cyprian on the consecration of the Eucharist.

aprenprx. any credit to so great a man as Origen) that all their spiritual

NO. VIII.

efficacy is derived from their consecration ; for the elements
“with respect to the prayer made over them,” to wit, that
by which they are changed into the body and blood of Christ,
“become profitable,’ and sanctify the worthy receivers of
them. But Origen explains his meaning yet more fully in
the words immediately following: “ And,’ says he’, “it is
not the matter of the bread, but the word or prayer said
over it which profits him that eats it not unworthily of the
Lord.”

Next to Origen let us hear St. Cyprian, a wonderful man,
and a most strenuous defender of the authority of the Church
and of the apostolic traditions. This venerable prelate com-
posed a whole, and that a very long Epistle, “ concerning the
Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord’.” It is the sixty-third
Epistle in the order of Pamelius. In that Epistle, among
many other things useful to be observed, there occur these,
which make for our purpose. “Yet,” says he, “because
some either ignorantly, or in the simplicity of their hearts,
do not do that in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, and in
administering it to the people, which was done and taught
by Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, the author and teacher
of this sacrifice’, &c.” And again: “ From whence it appears
that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in
the cup, and that the Lord’s sacrifice is not administered
with a lawful sanctification (or consecration), unless our offer-
ing and our sacrifice answer to the passion.” And a little
after: “And so in sanctifying the cup of the Lord water
alone cannot be offered.” And again: “ For if Jesus Christ,
our Lord and God, is Himself the high-priest of God the
Father, and He first offered Himself a sacrifice to His Father,

¥ kal ove 7 YAN TOD UpTov, GAN 6 en’
avTd eipnucvos Adyos éotly 6 wpeday
Tov wy avatiws Tov Kuptov edBlovTa av-
tov.—[Id., ibid., p.500, A, B.]

2 De Sacramento Dominici calicis.
—[S. Cyprian. Epist. lxiii. ad Ceci-
lium, pp. 104, sqq. ed. Ben. ]

* Tamen quoniam quidam vel igno-
ranter vel simpliciter in calice Domi-
nico sanctificando et plebi ministrando
non hoe faciunt, quod Jesus Christus
Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii

hujus auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit.
—(Id., ibid.] Unde apparet sanguinem
Christi non offerri, si desit vinum ca-
lici; nee sacrificium Dominicum legi-
tima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi ob-
latio et sacrificium nostrum responderit
passioni.—[ Ibid.,p.107.] Et, Sic autem
in sanctificando calice Domini offerri
aqua sola non potest.—[Ibid., p. 108. ]
Et, Nam siJesus Christus, Dominus et
Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos
Dei Patris; et sacrificium Patri se ip-

St. Basil, St. Cyril H., and Theodoret, on “ the invocation.” 415

and commanded that this should be done in remembrance of
Him, then that priest does truly act in Christ’s stead who
imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers in the
Church a true and full sacrifice to God the Father if he un-
dertake to offer after the same manner in which he sees
Christ Himself to have offered.” What in this passage the
most holy father calls “sanctification,” St. Basil and Theo-
doret style “invocation ;”’ which word does very well ex-
plain that which St. Irenzeus means by the “invocation of
God,” and the “word of God.” We see the Carthaginian
prelate wonderfully agrees with St. Ireneus and Origen.
One asserts that the bread and wine is made the body and
blood of Christ by “invocation,” the other by “ sanctifica-
tion,” which two words do without all controversy mean the
same thing. I cannot but observe from St. Cyprian that
the Eucharist is called a “true and full sacrifice” which the
priest “offers to God the Father,” and while he is offering it
“acts in the stead of Jesus Christ Himself, our great High-
priest.” And if the case be so, if the Eucharist is a true
sacrifice, if as often as the priest offers this sacrifice he acts
in the stead of Jesus Christ Himself, what can be more plain
and manifest than that no man ought to offer up this vener-
able sacrifice but he who is called of God, but he who is or-
dained and consecrated after the lawful and ordinary manner?

The same doctrine concerning the holy Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper is taught by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his
Catecheses. “ For,” says he‘, “as the bread and the wine of
the Eucharist, before the holy mvocation of the adorable
Trinity, were mere bread and wine; but after the invocation
is made, the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine
Christ’s blood ; so,” &c.

Most like to this is what Theodoret teaches us in his second

sum primus obtulit, et hoe fieri in sui
commemorationem precepit; utique

E; quoted above, vol. ii. p. 93, note z.
See Theodoret, quoted below, p. 416,

ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur,
qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur,
et sacrificium verum et plenum tune
offert in ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic in-
cipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum
Christum videat obtulisse.—[Ibid., p.
109. ]

> émixAnows.—[S. Basil. De Spiritu
Sancto, cap. 27. Op., tom, iii. p. 54,

note d. |

© homep yap 6 pros, kal 6 olvos ris
evxapiotias, mpd THs aylas emumAhoTeEws
TpockuvynTiKhs Tpiddos &ptos iv Kal ol-
vos AtTds, emikAhoews Oe yevouevns, 6 mev
uptos ylverat cOua Xpiorod, 6 5é olvos
aiua Xpiorov, «.t.A.—S, Cyril. Hier.
Catech. Myst. i. [§ 7. Op., p. 308, D. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT., V.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIL.

416 The testimony of St. Augustine, and of the Liturgies.

Dialogue, entitled "Acvyyuros, “ without confusion.” “ As
therefore,” says he’, “the symbols of the body and blood
of our Lord are one thing before the priest’s imvocation ;
but after that invocation, they are changed, and become
another: so,” &c.

From all these testimonies it is abundantly manifest, that
the fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries taught
that the consecration of the elements was necessary to their
becoming to us the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It were
endless to run through all the fathers of the fourth century.
Who has not heard of that celebrated saying of St. Augus-
tine®: “The word is added to the element, and it becomes a
sacrament?” Akin to which is that in his treatise concern-
ing the Trinity’: “ We only call that the body and blood of
Christ, which being taken from the fruits of the earth, and
consecrated with mystical prayer, we duly receive to our
spiritual health, in memory of the Lord’s suffering for us.”

Who does not know, that in all the ancient Liturgies,
which appear to have been composed in the fourth, or per-
haps in the third century, there are contained forms of conse-
cration, which are very full? See also the Clementine Consti-
tutions’, where there is extant a most accurate form of conse-
crating the elements ; the same, I make no doubt, with that
which was always used by the Eastern Church: for amongst
these deformed ruins of antiquity, we find very many things
which wonderfully illustrate the most ancient usages of the
primitive Church. Let me only explain the ancient prac-
tice of the Church in the words of St. Justin Martyr, who
flourished in the year of our Lord 140, and is a most un-
questionable evidence of the apostolic traditions. In his
second Apology" we have these words: “ And, as I said be-
fore, we having done praying, the bread and wine and water

d Samep tolvuy Ta ciuBodrAa Tod Se- terre acceptum, et prece mystica con-
oTOTIKOU CHmaTos Kal aluaros %AAa wey secratum rite sumimus ad_ salutem
clot mpd Tis tepariKhs emiukAhoews, weTa% spiritalem, in memoriam pro nobis Do-
de Thy emikAnow petaBdddrgcTa, kal minice passionis.—Id., de Trinit., lib.
€repa ylverou.— [Theodoret. Dial. ii. iii. [cap. 4. § 10. Op., tom. viii. p. 798,
Inconfusus. Op., tom. iv. p. 85, B.] B.

© Accedit verbum ad elementum, et § [ Const. Apost. (al.Clementine, )lib.
fit Sacramentum.—S. Aug. Tract. xxx. viii. cap. 12. Concilia, col. 473, sqq.
iu Joan. [§ 3. Op., tom. iii. col. 703, See above, vol. ii. pp- 122, sqq.]

Bal : bie b Kal, as mpoepnuev, Tavoauevev
orpus et sanguinem Christi illud judy rijs edxis &ptos mpoopepera kal
tantum dicimus, quod ex fructibus olvos kal $Swp' Kal 6 mpoeatas evxas

The Primitive and Scriptural forms at Consecration. 417

is offered ; and he that presides” (that is, the bishop or pres-
byter: Tertullian explains it‘ by antistes, “ prelate,” a word
of a very wide signification) ‘offers up prayers, and likewise
thanksgivings, with the utmost zeal and fervour, and by way
of acclamation the people answer, Amen.” That which the
most learned father means is: prayers being ended, which
the whole assembly of Christians put up to God, the bishop,
or in his absence the priest, receiving the elements, does
with the greatest ardour and elevation of mind (not hastily
and without meditation, as the Assembly of Divines have
most ignorantly expounded this passage) offer up prayers
and praises to God ; that is, does himself alone offer up the
prayer of consecration to God the Father, which being end-
ed, the people joyfully cry out, Amen; plainly in the same
manner which does now obtain in the Church of England:
for that the form of consecration was pronounced by the
priest alone, the people in the mean time with the greatest
devotion looking upon him to see him consecrate, is what
we have learned from all antiquity. And this does admir-
ably illustrate that difficult passage in St. Paul’s first Epistle
to the Corinthians*: “ Else when thou shalt bless with the
Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned,
say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth
not what thou sayest?” Iam of opinion with Mr. Thorndike’,
an author most eminent for his learning, judgment, and piety,
that this place is to be understood of the form of consecra-
tion. The Apostle shews in this Epistle how absurd a thing
it is, to make use of an unknown tongue in offering up public
prayers. “For when thou shalt bless,” says he, “with the
Spirit,” that is, shalt consecrate the elements by inspiration,
(for I have clearly proved that the words which we translate
“blessing, invocation, sanctification™,’ &c., do all mean the
same thing,) “how shall he that occupieth the room of the

duolws Kal edxapiorias, bon Sivapus ad-
TO, arameumer, Kal 6 Aads emevpnuct
Acyov 7d aunv.—tS. Just. M., Apol. i.
(al. il.) cap. 67. Op., p. 83; quoted
above, vol. ii. p. 105. ]

1 [Sub antistitis manu contestamur
nos renunciare Diabolo, &c.—Tertull.
De Corona, ¢. iii, Op., p. 102, A.]

Kk enel eay evrAoynans TH mvebpart, 6
dvarAnpav toy Téxov Tov idimTOV Tas

HICKES.

€pet TO Ghy emt TH of edxapioria.
ered} TL A€yets ovK olde. | Cor. xiv. 16.

1 [See The Service of God at Religi-
ous Assemblies, by H. Thorndike, chap.
x. § 38. Works, vol. i. pp. 336, 337.
Oxtord, 1844. See above, vol. ii. p.
215, note y. |

™ evAoyia, evAdynols, emiKANOLS, Sanc-
tificatio, &c, [See above, pp. 411, 415. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT. V.

418 Power of administering Sacraments must be from God ;

appenpix, unlearned,” that is, the layman, “say Amen to thy giving of

ao". thanks ;” that is, to thy benediction, or prayer of consecra-
tion, to wit, when he does not know what is contained in
that form? For which reason the layman neither can nor
ought to approve or confirm thy consecration with the ac-
customed acclamation. This seems to me to be the Apostle’s
meaning: however it is fit that every one should enjoy his
own opinion. The fate of the cause does not depend upon
this observation. I am very much mistaken if what I have
said be not sufficient to persuade any learned and modest
man, and good Christian, that the consecration of the ele-
ments is necessarily required in order to the bread and
wine’s becoming to us the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

II. I am now come to the second part of my question,
which is, that the right of consecrating the elements belongs
to no man but a priest duly and lawfully ordained by a
bishop: and this I shall endeavour to prove, Ist, from rea-
son; and 2ndly, shall confirm my reasons by the authority
of the Church.

I lay down this for the foundation of my argument, that
the right and power of administering Sacraments can be
derived only from God: the truth of this proposition is
demonstrated both from reason, and from the actual in-
stitution of Jesus Christ. For,

1. Let us consider with ourselves what is the nature, and
virtue, and end of a Sacrament. Jesus Christ instituted
Sacraments in His Church, to be the conveyances of spiritual
benefits to us; to confer grace; and to procure forgiveness
of sins to us miserable sinners. From whence it follows,
that no man can consecrate these Sacraments, unless he has
received power to consecrate them from Him, who alone is
able to confer these spiritual benefits; but God alone is able
to confer these spiritual benefits ; therefore the power of con-
secrating the Sacraments can be derived only from Him.
What, I would fain know, can be clearer than this argu-
ment? What can be more convincing ?

2. This does likewise appear from the actual institution
of Jesus Christ. I should be very troublesome to the reader
if I should run through all the passages of Scripture, in
which Jesus Christ has committed the government of His
Church to a certain determinate order of men. I will con-

proved from reason, and the institution of Christ. 419

tent myself only to point out one or two of them: “As My
Father hath sent Me,” (says our blessed Saviour to [is Apo-
stles°,) “even so send I you.” Hence it is, that St. Paul affirms
himself to be? “an Apostle, not of men, neither by men, but
by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from
the dead.” And we read in the Epistle to the Ephesians that 4
“He” (that is, our blessed Saviour) “gave some Apostles,
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pas-
tors and teachers ;” that is to say, both certain extraordinary
ministers, only necessary for laying the foundation of the
Church; and other ordinary ones, that were to continue to
the end, without which the Church cannot subsist. But to
what end and for what purpose are these several orders of
ministers instituted? The Apostle does himself also evi-
dently declare that: “for the perfecting of the saints,” says
he’, “for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
body of Christ,” that is, of the Church. And the Apostle
subjoins a very good reason, why Christ appointed these
orders of ministers: “that,” says he 5, “we henceforth be
no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive ;” lest being
entangled in the various snares of schismatics and heretics,
we should wander from the right way. Seeing therefore it
appears so evidently, that Jesus Christ constituted divers
orders of ministers in His Church for this very end,
to feed the faithful with sound doctrine, to serve in the
sacred offices, and to build the Christian Church; who, I
beseech you, that is not forsaken of common sense, can make
the least doubt but that the consecration of the Sacraments
belonged to these very ministers, thus instituted by Jesus
Christ? Who, I say, that is in his right mind, can ever
dream that the right of administering these sacred mysteries
could ever belong to the confused multitude of the faithful,

°o

Kabws dréeoTaAKe me 6 TaTHp, Kaym Aovs. Eph. iv. 11.

méurw jas. John xx. 21.

P TlavAos amréaToAos ovK am avOpe-
mwv, ovde BC aGvOpémov, GAAG bia “Inood
Xpictov, kal Ocov marpds Tod eyeipay-
Tos auTov ex vexpav. Gal. i. 2.

4 kal avtos €dwKe Tovs mev, GrooTd-

. \ \ i = \ \ >

Aous’ Tous be, tpopiras’ Tous de, evaryye-
os \ SS) ye

Aiotds* Tovs be, womévas Kal dibacKd-

¥ mpos Toy KaTapTiomoy TaY aylov,
cis épyov diaKovias, els oixodounv tod
odparos Tod Xpicrod. Ibid. 12.

S tva pnkért Guev vhmiot, KAvdwri-
Céuevol, Kal mepipepduevor tavT) aveuw
THs SidacKkaAtas, ev TH KUBela TOY ay-
Opdrav, ev mavoupyla mpos Thy me0o-
delay THs wAdYns. Ibid. 14.

HUGHES
DISSERT. V.

APPENDIX,

NO. VII.

420 No evidence that this power is given to the laity.

when even that very commission, or power by which the
right of administering in things sacred is committed to the
clergy, does most fully exclude from these sacred offices all
other persons whatsoever, though they be never so pious, never
so learned, or well deserving? What therefore do they mean,
who make such a noise for the authority of laics in sacred
offices ? Whence did the laity receive this authority ? From
whom? At what time? and in what manner? In what
part of the New Testament, in what archives of the primitive
Church does this commission lie hid? Let them produce it.
Why do they hesitate? In good truth the cause of the
laity is quite hopeless, and has neither reason nor authority
to defend it; and therefore, good men, they are forced to
have recourse to jesting, railing and contumely, with which
this new oracle of the laics does every where abound.

But to return from this digression. My first proposition
therefore remains unshaken ; viz., that the right of adminis-
tering the Sacraments is derived only from God; hence it
follows that this right can belong to none but him that
is called and ordained of God. Miracles have been long
ceased, and therefore we must proceed in the ordinary way ;
and from hence it likewise follows, that no man is called of
God but he that is ordained according to the rites and cus-
toms of the Church; the Catholic Church neither does,
nor ever did acknowledge any ordinations to be firm and
valid, but such as are episcopal: this I have abundantly
proved in my dissertation concerning episcopacyt: and from
all these particulars taken together it is easy to collect, that
the right of consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist
belongs to none but priests duly ordained by a bishop.

Having laid this foundation, and confirmed it both by
reason and Scripture, let us proceed to primitive antiquity,
that by variety of arguments this great and fundamental
truth may both be confirmed and illustrated.

But before we produce the holy fathers it may not be
foreign to my purpose to answer an objection brought from
Scripture, which our sons of Corah frequently allege, and in
which they are wont egregiously to boast, as an objection of
very great force. The Eucharist, say they, is substituted in

t [See above, Dissertation ii. ]

The argument from the Passover does not apply. 421

the room of the observance of the Passover, and for that rea-
son we cannot better learn who are the ministers of this
Sacrament than by well considering who were the ministers
of that observance; for it cannot be doubted but that the
laics among Christians have the same power and authority
in things sacred, and especially in the administration of this
Sacrament, which they had among the Jews in holy func-
tions, particularly in the celebration of the Passover. But
it appears, say they, most evidently from the very institution
of the Passover mentioned in the Old Testament, that the
celebration of the paschal supper did not belong to the
priests, but to the whole multitude of the Israelites, to the
fathers of families. From hence they argue most strenu-
ously that the celebration also of the Lord’s Supper (which
succeeded in the room of the Passover) appertains to all the
multitude of the faithful, and that all the laity have right
both of consecrating the elements and of administering to
themselves. I readily grant that the case is thus, and that
the father of the family did at his own home sacrifice a lamb
in the name of all the family", and that in that regard he re-
tained the ancient right of priesthood which belonged to the
first-born or fathers of families. But unless I am very much
mistaken, it is so far from following from hence that our
laics have a right to administer the Lord’s Supper, that the
contrary will be very easily proved from it.

The fathers of families did at their own homes slay the
paschal lamb, viz., because it was a private sacrifice, insti-
tuted of God for that end, that it should be eaten in every
family. It was by no means of the number of those sacri-
fices which were brought to the temple, and offered up in a
public manner. ‘The paschal supper did not any way belong
to the public worship of the temple, but was confined within
the walls of private houses, and had all the appearance of
a private commemoration. If, therefore, our most blessed
Saviour had so instituted His Sacrament of the Eucharist as
that it should not be celebrated in public assemblies, but

HUGHES
DISSERT. v.

that every one should in his own private house administer it

u That what is here asserted of the going translation, at the end of this
Passover, is to be confined to the times Appendix. [This note is added by the
before the institution of the Levitical translator; the Advertisement is now
priesthood, see proved in the Adver- placed at the end of this Number of the
tisement concerning this and the fore- Appendix. ]

APPENDIX.
NO. VIII.

422 Contrast between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper.

to himself and to his family, there would indeed be some
weight in this argument. But since it evidently appears,
both from sacred writ and from the constant practice of the
Catholic Church, that the holy Eucharist is to be accounted
among the chief offices of the public worship, the contrary,
in my opinion, does manifestly follow from it. It was our
blessed Saviour’s will that the commemoration of His bloody
passion should have the chief place in the public offices, and
that it should have the nature of a commemorative sacrifice,
far more noble than that typical and figurative one made use
of among the Jews. It was His intent, therefore, without
all doubt, that this public commemoration should be cele-
brated by the public ministers of His Church; that this
commemorative sacrifice should be offered up by the public
priests. It was necessary that the Jews should from their
own principles understand our Saviour thus; for their public
sacrifices were slain by their priests only; nothing was here
claimed by the laity, nothing by the fathers of families;
therefore the argument drawn from the paschal supper is
trivial and of no force. For there is a very great difference
between the paschal supper, which was a private sacrifice,
and the Supper of the Lord, which is a public sacrifice, and
claims the chief place among the public offices.

To this may be added, that it appears from most express
passages of the Old Testament that the right of sacrificing
the paschal lamb appertained to the fathers of families ;
whereas there is not the least word of any such power
granted to the laics in the New Testament. This very
great power was by our blessed Saviour committed to the
Apostles, by the Apostles to the bishops, and by the bishops
to the priests: but of any such power ever entrusted with
the laity we have not so much as heard the least mention.
Nay, the primitive Church looked upon the right of conse-
crating the Eucharist to be so appropriated to priests, that
not only the laics, but even the deacons, could never arro-
gate it to themselves without the greatest impiety.

That all this is most true will appear by looking into the

' testimonies of the holy fathers concerning this matter.

And let St. Ignatius lead the way. In his Epistle to the
Church of Smyrna he has this passage: ‘ Let that Eucharist
be accounted yalid which is celebrated either under the

Consecration always held to belong only to Priests. 423

bishop, or under him to whom the bishop hath given his
commission’.” And in his Epistle to the Ephesians he says*:
“Let no man be deceived ; if any one be not within the altar,”
(that is, if any one do not communicate with the bishop,)
‘he is deprived of the bread of God: for if the prayer of one
or two have so much force, how much more shall that of the
bishop and whole Church have?” I shall content myself
with these two passages, and from them it will be easy to
make a judgment what was the opinion of that most holy
martyr concerning the question before us. But that we
may the better understand his meaning, it will be necessary
to call to remembrance those principles which prevailed in
the times of St. Ignatius. The blessed martyr takes it for
granted’ that the bishop administers upon earth in the place
of Jesus Christ, and is the representative of the Divine Word’.
He takes it also for granted that none are partakers of the
spiritual benefits but such as are united to Jesus Christ our
head; and that no man is united to Jesus Christ in heaven
but he that joms himself to the communion of the bishop,
who is Christ’s representative upon earth. This is the rea-
son that in all his Epistles he affirms over and over that
these spiritual benefits depend upon our union with the
bishop: that no baptism is valid, no prayer acceptable to
God, no Eucharist beneficial, and lastly no matrimony good
and valid, but what is performed within the communion of
the bishop. From this principle he argues against schis-
matics, and maintains that they are dismembered from Jesus
Christ because they have forsaken the communion of the
bishop. And from hence he likewise concludes that their
Sacraments are null and invalid.

Now from all this it appears,

1. That no Eucharist is true and valid but that which is
celebrated within the communion of the bishop; from whence
it follows that laics, as such, and of themselves, have no right
to administer the Sacraments.

> / 4 > , c /
v exetvn BeBaia evxapioria jryelcbw,
Sie > f > ay -
n b7d Toy exickoToY ovca, 7) w by adds
emitpeyyn.—S. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn.,
[c. 8. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 36.]
X undels travaclw edy un Tis 7 evTds
Tod Ovo.aornplou, baTepeita: Tov &ptov
Tov Oeov" ei yap évds Kal Sevtepou mpo-

oevxX7) ToTavTny icxiv exe, Téow MGA-
Aov TE TOU éemitKdmov, Kal mdons éx-
kAnotas.—ld., Epist. ad Ephes., [¢. 5.,
ibid., p. 13.]

y [See above, pp. 300, 333; and
Epist. ad Polycarp., c. 5. p. 41.]

% rdyos.

HUGHES
DISSERT, V.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

424, ‘ He whom the Bishop permits, explained.

2. Whereas St. Ignatius uses this expression, “Or under
him to whom the bishop hath given his permission,” some
difficulty may seem to arise from these words; for if the
bishop should permit a layman to administer the Sacrament,
would it then be valid? Would it confer grace? This diffi-
culty will immediately vanish if we consider the practice of
the primitive Church. It was the custom for all the faith-
ful dwelling in one city to receive the Sacrament from the
bishop himself in the cathedral church, if that could be done,
and the church was large enough to contain all the people.
But when, as the multitude of the faithful mcereased, they
began to be straitened, the bishop gave leave to one or
other of the presbyters to celebrate the Eucharist in some
oratory. By this means the unity of the Church was ad-
mirably consulted, and the meanest of the people by this
method were very well apprized of how great moment it was
to communicate with the bishop. It is sufficiently manifest,
that by “him whom the bishop permits,” St. Ignatius means
a priest; nay, I will undertake that there cannot be found
so much as one instance of a bishop that ever permitted the
power of consecrating the Sacrament, I do not say to a lay-
man, but even to a deacon.

Thus we see very clearly what was judged concerning this
great controversy by St. Ignatius, a man truly apostolic, and
most familiarly acquainted with the Apostles themselves.
Believe me, the least sentence of this holy martyr concern-
ing controversies of this nature is deservedly to be preferred
before whole volumes of the moderns, though never so much
skilled in the art of criticism. For what does it signify, after
a great deal of pains and much industry, at last to find out
what Salmasius, Daillé, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of that
sort of men thought concerning the point in dispute? For
my part I must beg leave to follow venerable antiquity. To
proceed, therefore, with the testimony of the ancients.

St. Justin Martyr is a most full evidence that in his time
(viz., in the year of our Lord 140) the right of consecrating
the Sacrament belonged to the president or bishop*: it apper-
tained to him “to offer up prayers’,” &c., but he says not

* mpocaraés. M. Apol. i. c. 67. ([Op., p. 83, E;
evxas avameurew, k.7.A.—S. Just. quoted above, pp. 416, 417. ]

Testimonies of St. Justin M. and St. Cyprian. 425

one word of the consecration of laics. If we go on to St. Cy-
prian, the light and glory of the third century, how plainly,
how fully, and how courageously does he declare for us?
The most holy martyr maintains that* “the Eucharist is a
full and true sacrifice, and that it is offered to God the Father
by the priest, who administers upon earth in the stead of
Jesus Christ.” Is it possible that he who made use of such
lofty and sublime expressions concerning the Sacrament,
could so much as have the least suspicion of any consecra-
tion by laics? He must be a very great stranger to the
writings of St. Cyprian that can suffer any such thing to
enter into his mind.

The sum, therefore, of all this argument is this: Jesus
Christ, when He instituted this holy Sacrament, consecrated
the elements of bread and wine by a solemn form of bene-
diction, as it was usual among the Jews; He commanded
the Apostles to do the same which they saw Him do. That
the Apostles did most religiously observe this command can-
not be doubted without impiety: hence the cup is called by
St. Paul* “the cup of blessing.” That the primitive Church
most strictly followed the example of the Apostles all the
monuments of antiquity do in the fullest manner assure us.
Wherever we meet with any mention of the holy Eucharist
(and we meet with it very often) there we always read of
consecration, and that performed by a priest; but not the
least syllable of consecration by laics. From all which I
argue, Ist. That consecration is necessarily required, in
order that the elements of bread and wine may become to
us the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 2ndly. That the
right of consecration belongs to none but priests.

But here our adversary takes me up very smartly. Why,
says he, do you boast so wonderfully of the holy fathers?
Are not you ashamed of yourself? Are not you conscious
that you impose upon the whole world? Have you so much
forgot your Tertullian, whom you just now quoted, and en-
deavoured to force him against his will to give in evidence
on your side of the cause? Let Tertullian, therefore, be
called in again, whom alone of all the fathers of the Church

HICKES, I

HUGHES

DISSERT, V.

APPENDIX.
NO. VIII.
COC

426 Tertullian’s statements agt. the distinction of clergy & laity.

the laics think worthy to be read. I know very well that in
this one author are contained all those objections which may
any way seem to weaken our opinion. Under him they al-
ways shelter themselves, and think themselves safe enough
against all the arguments brought from antiquity, wherewith
they are pressed by the clergy. Let us then strictly examine
this writer, and weighing his reasons on both sides, see what
may be judged to make for us and what against us. In the
first place, therefore, I will produce those passages which are
frequently cited by our adversaries, and then seriously con-
sider what force and weight we ought to ascribe to them.

In his treatise of Exhortation to Chastity, there is this
passage®: “It is written, ‘And hath made us kings and
priests unto God and His Father’ the difference between the
sacred order and the people was made by the authority of
the Church, and the honour sanctified by the assembly of
the order; therefore where there is no assembly of the eccle-
siastical order you offer and baptize, and are alone a priest
to yourself’ And a little after: “Therefore if you have the
right of a priest in yourself where it is necessary, you must
needs also have the discipline of a priest where it is neces-
sary to have the right of a priest.” And in his treatise con-
cerning Baptism‘: “The high-priest,” says he, “who is the
bishop, has indeed the power of giving (baptism); and then
the presbyters and the deacons, yet not without the autho-
rity of the bishop, for the sake of the Church’s honour ; which
being preserved her peace is safe. Otherwise the laics would
also have right; for that which is received equally may be
equally given.”

These are those passages of Tertullian so much talked of,
which are urged with the greatest vehemence for the autho-
rity of the laics in sacred offices: but to these evidences

© Scriptum est, ‘Regnum quoque
nos, et sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fe-
cit:’ diflerentiam inter ordinemet plebem
constituit ecclesiz auctoritas, et honor
per ordinis consessum_ sanctificatus:
adeo ubiecclesiastici ordinis non est con-
Sessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos
es tibi solus . . . Igitur si habes jus sa-
cerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est,
habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sa-
cerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sa-

cerdotis.—Tertull. de Exhort. Castit.,
cap. vii. [Op., p. 522, A.]

f Dandi quidem habet jus summus
sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehine
presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine
episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesiz
honorem, quo salvo, salva‘ pax est.
Alioquin etiam laicis jus est, quod
enim ex zquo accipitur, ex zquo dari
potest.—Id. de Baptismo, cap. xvii.
[Op., pp. 280, C. 231, A.]

The value of Tertullian’s opinion, as such, considered. 427

from Tertullian, as much as they may appear to make against
us, there are very many things which may be justly an-
swered, viz.

1. Supposing that it evidently appeared from these pas-
sages that there was nothing in the Christian priesthood but
what in the absence of the priest might be administered by
a laic, what would follow from thence? To wit, that that
was Tertullian’s meaning, that there was no proper and real
distinction between the clergy and the laity. But what, I
desire to know, ought the opinion of Tertullian alone to
avail against the most stedfast judgment of the whole Catho-
lic Church? Will any impartial judge of things believe that
the imagination of one private writer, and he uncorrect, of a
fierce unruly temper, and of a most luxuriant style, is to be
preferred before the practice and judgment of the whole
Catholic Church ?

In producing the testimonies of the holy fathers it is of
very great moment to distinguish nicely between those
things which they deliver to us as historians, as witnesses
most worthy to be believed, and those which they collect by

HUGHES

DISSERT. V.

certain private reasonings, which are to be esteemed as their

own judgments. In things of the first kind we cannot re-
fuse to give them credit without the greatest both ignorance
and obstinacy: but with regard to the private reasonings of
the holy fathers, we ought no farther to subscribe to them
than we find their reasons of weight enough to persuade us.
This observation will be of the greatest use in reading all the
fathers, but particularly Tertullian, who seems to give too
much liberty to his luxuriant wit. Good God! how very
often does he stray from the question! What light, trivial,
and empty stuff does he put off for arguments! All that he
writes indeed is elegant, copious, and delightful; but in his
works you will find many, very many things, which want
both force and weight. Do but just look over his treatise
de Corona®, a beautiful piece indeed, and adorned with all
the flowers of African eloquence; but if you look for argu-
ments in it he will wonderfully deceive you. Nothing sound,
nothing solid, nothing that looks like an argument does any
where appear therein. Let us see, therefore, whether this

& [Tertull. de Corona, Op., pp. 100, sqq.}

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

1 [These
words are
added by
the trans-
lator. ]

428 Tertullian’s reasons of no force; and his opinions

new, and till now altogether unheard of opinion concerning -
the Christian priesthood, did not spring from Tertullian’s
most fruitful brain, or was not wholly owing to his private
reasonings. That indeed is what I affirm. He brings rea-
sons in both places, by which he endeavours to confirm this
opinion of his. I desire, therefore, that we may weigh his
reasons: for Tertullian’s authority in this controversy ought
to be just of as much weight as his reasons are found to
be of.

In his Exhortation to Chastity, our African writer ar-
gues from that famous passage of St. Peter": “ But ye are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a
peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of
Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvel-
lous light.””. From these words he collects that the whole
Christian people are a royal priesthood, and consequently
that all the ministries of the priesthood belong to them.
Now if it can be clearly and evidently proved that no such
thing can be justly concluded from those words of the Apo-
stle, Tertullian’s authority (im this particular') will fall to the
ground, and this new and ill-grounded conjecture will vanish
into smoke. Let us try, therefore. These words of St. Peter
are taken from a passage in Exodus, where God calls the
Israelitesi “a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.” But
if these words in Exodus do not by any means prove that
there were no functions so appropriated to the Israelitical
priests as that the laity could not usurp them without im-
piety, neither will these words in St. Peter prove that the
Christian people have any right to administer the functions
appropriated to the priesthood amongst them. The ante-
cedent is manifest from all experience, and from all the
monuments of antiquity; therefore nothing can be con-
cluded from St. Peter concerning the authority of the laics
in this matter. Tertullian therefore argues ill; he is mis-
taken ; his reasoning here is of no force; his authority is of
no power to persuade.

: P ducts de, yévos exrexTov, Bactreiov [See Tertull. de Exhort. Cast., c. vii.;
tepateuua, eOvos a&y.ov, Aads eis Tept- quoted above, p. 426, note e. }

molnow dmws Tas dperas ekayyelAnrte i BactAcioy teparevua, Kat €Ovos ayLov.
Tov ek oKdrous Suds Kadécuvtos eis T2 Exod. xix. 6.

auuagriy avrod pas. 1 Pet. ii. 9,—

contrary to those of the whole primitive Church. 429

In the same chapter this ancient writer is not afraid to
affirm* “that where there are three Christians met they are
a Church, though they be all laics;” which is not only
most false, but repugnant to the constant opinion of the
primitive Church, especially of that age wherein Tertullian
flourished. St. Ignatius had before that time taught quite
otherwise: so afterwards did St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, and
all the rest that were conversant in ecclesiastical traditions,
who all with one consent instruct us that the Church cannot
be understood without a bishop.

Let us proceed to the second reason alleged by Tertullian,
which we meet in his treatise concerning Baptism, expressed
in these words!: “ For that which is equally received may be
equally given.” But what is weaker and more absurd than
this proposition? It is not worth while to dwell upon the
answer to so trifling an objection. I will only produce one
instance fetched from the Jewish commonwealth. The
Israelitical priests received a power of sacrificing from God ;
but could they therefore equally give this power to others?
No such matter. All this is nothing but mere trifling, and
has not the least weight in it. Tertullian’s reasons neither
do nor can prove any thing. I beg leave, therefore, to dis-
sent from Tertullian in this particular, and rather to follow
reason than the authority of a great man which has not the
least reason to support it.

St. Cyprian, who is in age only forty years inferior to Ter-
tullian, affords us a most noted instance of this matter. In
his fifth Epistle, which after his departure he sent to his
presbyters and deacons, he admonishes them to use the
greatest both care and prudence in visiting the confessors.
He judges that the safest way is, that few should go to them
at one time, and those privately, lest doing otherwise should
give offence. But let us hear St. Cyprian’s own words:
“Consult therefore,” says he™, “and provide, that this may
be done more safely and with caution, so that the presbyters

k Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici.
—Tertull. de Exhort. Cast. [c. vii.
These words follow those quoted above,
p- 426, note e. |

! Tertull. de Baptism. ubi sup.;
[quoted above, p. 426, note f. ]

m Consulite ergo et providete, ut
cum temperamento hoc agi tutius pos-

sit, ita ut presbyteri quoque qui illic
apud confessores offerunt, singuli cum
singulis diaconis per vices alternent:
quia et mutatio personarum et vicissi-
tudo convenientium minuit invidiam.—

[S. Cypr. Epist. iv. (v. ed. Pamel.)
Op., p. 9. ]

HUGHES

DISSERT. V.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

430 Laymen never consecrated even in cases of necessity ;

also, who there administer to the confessors, may go every
one by turns with each of the deacons, because the change
of persons and vicissitude of comers gives less occasion of
jealousy.” From this passage of the holy martyr what I
would prove is this, that in the age of St. Cyprian the con-
secration of laics was not so much as heard of, for if at that
time this custom had obtained, is it not a matter of wonder
that the confessors were not allowed to consecrate the Eu-
charist for themselves? What was the cause why the priests
should with the greatest danger of their lives go to the pri-
son, visit the faithful, and fortify and confirm them against
the terrors of death, and the threats of their persecutors, with
the most wholesome sacrifice of the Eucharist, if the laics
also had a right to consecrate the Sacrament? Whence is
it that St. Cyprian did no where exhort them that when
necessity urged, and no priests were at hand, they should
offer and consecrate for themselves ? Whence is it that in all
the history of the Church we never read that confessors, at
the very approach of death, consecrated the Eucharist? But
there are no instances or footsteps any where appear of such
kind of consecrations, even in cases of the utmost exigence.
Whatever occurs in the holy fathers concerning this sacrifice,
excepting only one obscure and very difficult passage of Ter-
tullian, persuades us of the contrary, and most evidently
proves that this power did ever belong to priests only. Is
it not very agreeable to reason to argue that the laity never
had any such power, because it is sufficiently manifest that
no such power was ever exercised by them ?

The next argument by which I prove that in the opinion
of the third century laics had never any right to consecrate
the Sacrament, is taken from hence, that it appears that dea-
cons, the third order of the holy ministry, were never en-
dowed with that power. And this appears most evidently
from the great Nicene council, whose authority was always
of very great esteem in the Christian Church. The words
of the canon are these": “The holy and great council was
informed that in some places and cities the deacons gave the

n jdOev cis Thy aylay Kal peyddAnv olay wh Exovtas mpoopéepew, Tors mpoc-
abvodov, drt ev tict Témos Kal méAEoL épovor Siddvar To Toma TOD XpicTod.
Tos mpeoButepos thy evyapictiay of —Conce. Nic. Can. xviii. [ Concilia, tom.

U e os
Sidicovor diddacw sbrep obre 6 Kavav, ii. col. 41, A.]
<
obre 4 ovvtPeia mapédwKer, rods efou-

nor even Deacons ; as appears from the council of Nice. 431

Eucharist to the presbyters, a thing which neither canon
nor custom allowed, viz., that such as have not authority to
offer should deliver the body of Christ to those that offer.”
The canon does in most express words deny that deacons
ought so much as to deliver the elements to priests; and
then alleges this reason, that according to the canons and
custom of the Church it was unworthy of, and by no means
became those, who had not the power of consecrating the Sa-
crament, to deliver the Eucharist to priests, who were endowed
with this extraordinary power. From this one passage we
understand that the fathers of the Nicene council, men
venerable both for age, learning, and piety, and perfectly
well acquainted with, and most tenacious of ecclesiastical
traditions, had never so much as heard of consecrations by
deacons, and much less by laics. It is indeed very wonder-
ful that this most ancient and pure custom (as they loudly
proclaim it) should in the best times, without any contest
or the least noise, have so wholly vanished throughout all
the Christian world that it was not only not made use of by
any one, but that not so much as one of all those bishops,
assembled from all the corners of the empire, had been able
to learn even that there ever was any such custom in the
Church. From this one testimony (it is so considerable and
illustrious) we may not without reason conclude that the
power of consecrating the elements in the holy Eucharist
never belonged either to laics or to deacons.

DISSERTATION VI.

OF THE POWER OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IN THE ELECTIONS
OF THE CLERGY,

Wuar has been said in the foregoing dissertations is
abundantly sufficient to persuade even the most obstinate
that there is a very great difference between the clergy and
the laity, and that the sacred functions are so appropriated
to that order as that they cannot be usurped by laics without
rashness and impiety. It remains now that I add something
concerning the authority of the Christian people in the elec-

HUGHES
DISSERT. V.

432 That the laity had no proper voice in the election of clergy ;

arrenpix. tions of the clergy, lest any thing should seem to be wanting

NO. VIII.

to my purpose. Our adversaries do vehemently contend that
the suffrages of the people are so necessarily required in the
elections of bishops and presbyters, that if these suffrages be
either taken away or diminished no such election ought to
be accounted just and lawful. And this conjecture of theirs
they imagine is wonderfully confirmed, not only from the
nature of the Christian society, but also from divers exam-
ples in the New Testament.

I assert, therefore, that the people, or multitude of the
faithful, had no proper suffrages in the elections of the
clergy; but whatever power in this particular they arro-
gated to themselves in the third or fourth century, (and I
do not deny that they arrogated very much,) that all that,
whatever it was, was done by the indulgence and favour of
the bishops, but by no manner of right. And I am not
afraid of undertaking to demonstrate this with the greatest
evidence and perspicuity. For,

1. It appears most clearly from the sacred oracles, that
Jesus Christ committed the care and government of His
Church to a certain determinate order of men. But con-
cerning the authority or suffrages of the people, there does
not appear the least shadow of a command. And indeed,
as far as I can see, the very designation of a certain peculiar
order for the government of the Church does manifestly
exclude the laity from all authority in matters ecclesiastical.
For pray consider: when any one delivers a commission to a
particular person, is not he thereby supposed to have utterly
excluded all other persons whatever from the power designed
in that commission?

2. To whom the power of the keys is entrusted after a
peculiar manner, to them also is committed the power of
governing the Church in solidum, (to speak in St. Cyprian’s
phrase°®,) that is, so to share the government among them, as
that each had a right in the whole. This is manifest from
thence, that the power of governing the Church is in the
Scripture particularly designed by the power of the keys. It
is a thing most evident, that the power of the keys was
always committed to the Apostles apart from the people:

° [S. Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesia, Op., p. 195, quoted above, p. 192.]

shewn from the New Testament. 433

from whence this also follows, that it was likewise apart
from the people that the power of governing the Church
was committed to the Apostles, and the authority which the
Apostles had received from Jesus Christ, they did also apart
from the people entrust whole and entire to the bishops.
Therefore the right and authority of governing the Church
belongs to the bishops, without either the power or the suf-
frages of the people.

3. Though we look through the Epistles to Timothy and
Titus never so often, we shall be able to find nothing therein,
which can by any means seem to favour the authority of the
people in things sacred. The Apostle does most fully in-
struct Timothy and all his successors how they ought to
behave themselves, both in inflicting ecclesiastical censures
and in consecrating ecclesiastical persons. But he says not
the least word either of the authority or of the suffrages of
the people: nay there are not a few things in these Epistles
which persuade the contrary. In the former of those to
Timothy the Apostle gives him this caution’: “Lay hands
suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s
sins.” If these words are to be understood, as most allow,
concerning the ordination of presbyters, it may be safely
concluded from them that the full power of ordination is in
the hands of bishops ; for it were unjust that all the fault of a
bad ordination should be wholly thrown upon the bishop, if
in all ordinations the people had at least an equal authority
with the bishop, or perhaps even a greater than he.

There is no precept therefore occurs in all the New Testa-
ment, by virtue of which the people can arrogate this power
to themselves. Let us now see what authority accrues to
the cause of the laics from the examples which are men-
tioned in holy Scripture. And believe me, we shall find that
just as much as the other. For whereas,

1. It is said that in the Acts of the Apostles4 St. Mauna
was chosen into the Apostleship by the common suffrage of
the Church: I answer; that St. Matthias was both nomi-
nated and elected, neither by the people, nor by the Apo-
stles, but by God Himself, after an extraordinary manner.

P xelpas Taxéws undev emirider, unde kowdver Guaptlas GAAorpias. 1Tim. vy. 22.
4 Acts i.

HICKEs, 3K

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI.

434 Authorities alleged from Scripture and the fathers

arrenpix. So that nothing can be gathered from hence which makes

NO. VIII.

for either side of the question.

2. It is confidently affirmed, that the making of deacons
in the Acts’ is by the Apostles themselves referred wholly
to the people. On the contrary I reply, that only the
nomination of deacons, but not by any means either the
election or consecration of them, is in this place ascribed to
the Christian people. And farther I urge, that the Apostles
granted this to the people, not by any original or divine
right, but by a certain peculiar indulgence which the necessity
of the time required. Besides, I would ask those who make
this objection, what their opinion is, whether the assembly
of the Apostles could reject the persons nominated to them
by the multitude, or could not. If they could not, there is
an end of the authority of the Apostleship. But if it be
granted that they could have rejected them, then it is in
vain to contend that any right in elections of the clergy
accrues to the people from this place.

3. As tothat doughty and formidable argument taken from
the word yeporovia, (“ ordination ’,”’) I shall only answer
these few things: they who make use of such arguments, to
wit, that are taken from the triflings and impertinences of
grammarians, ought to be received only with laughter and
contempt, and not vouchsafed any serious answer. Let
these empty triflers go therefore, and either invent better
reasons or give up their cause as desperate.

4. Well; but, say they, the primitive Church always
granted this authority to the Christian people: all the holy
fathers acknowledge this; and St. Cyprian (whom you will
not deny to have been very well acquainted with the disci-
pline of the Church) does more than once assert, that it
depends upon a divine and apostolic right. Let us go there-
fore, if you please, to the holy fathers.

There are very ancient footsteps of ordmation extant in
St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians; where there is also
mention of the consent of the people. Let us hear his words :
“Such therefore,” says het, “ as were appointed by them,” (he

E Acts vi. meaning ‘‘election.’’ See Acts xiv. 24. ]
[This word is added by the trans- t rovs ov katactabertas bm exelvwr,
lator; the argumentturns on the word’s 4) petati b¢’ érépwy eAdAoyiuwv avdpar,

Jor the election of the clergy by the laity, examined. 435

means the Apostles,) ‘or afterwards by other eminent men,
with the consent of the whole Church, and have adminis-
tered blamelessly to the flock of Christ, with humility, peace-
ably, and without sordidness, and have testimonials of their
good behaviour for a considerable time from all that know
them, such men we think to be unjustly deprived of their
ministry.” In the primitive ordinations (as this apostolic
writer teaches us) the consent" of the people was required.
It is true: we do not deny it. But what, I beseech you,
was this consent? By the word which we render thus, we
cannot understand so much as nomination, much less elec-
tion. St. Clement’s meaning therefore was this: that the
consent of the people was requisite in the ordinations of the
clergy ; viz., that they should give the persons to be ordained
their testimony concerning their lives, their manners, and
their piety, (as it is intimated in the words immediately fol-
lowing,) that the Church might suffer no damage; and that
the bishops for want of such information might not promote
unworthy or impious persons to so great dignity. That this
power belongs to the people, I most readily acknowledge ;
and it is most fully owned by the Church of England. But
if our adversaries imagine, that any thing farther can be ex-
torted from this passage, in truth they are miserably mis-
taken. St.Clement is wholly on our side of the question.

In St. Ignatius’ Epistles (as well as I remember) there is
nothing concerning the consent of the people. And no man
can ever believe that a greater power than this was allowed
to the people by him, who ascribed so plenary an authority
to bishops in all ecclesiastical offices.

St. Ireneus, that glory of the city of Lyons, yields the
clearest testimonies to the divine original of episcopacy ; but
as far as I have been able to observe from a repeated perusal
of the works of this most learned father, he says not one
word concerning ordinations.

Let us come therefore to St. Cyprian, in whom, and almost
in him only, our adversaries place the support of their cause.
suvevdoknodons THs exkAnolas mdons, ov Sikalws voulfouey amoBardéoOa Tis
kal Aecroupyhoavras dueunTws TH Tou- AerToupylas.—[S. Clem. R. Epist. i.
via Tod Xpiorov peta Tawevoppootvyns, cap. 44. Patr. Apost., tom. i. p. 173. ]

jnovxws Ka aBavatows, wewapTupnuevous " guvevddKnaols.
Te ToAAOIS Xpdvois bd ravTwY, TOUTOUS

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI.

APPENDIX,
* NO. VIII.

1 [* follow-
ing,’ in ed.

Ben.]

436 The mode of ordaining clergy in the time of

Having therefore with the greatest diligence and integrity
examined into the works of this most holy prelate, I will
clearly and ingenuously set down what was his opinion con-
cerning the question before us.

And in order to this end I will do these three things.

1. I will describe the method of ordination practised in
the times of St. Cyprian.

2. I will enquire what in the African style is to be under-
stood by the word suffragium, ‘ suffrage.”

3. I will prove that St. Cyprian had power to ordain with-
out the people. :

1. [ begin with the method of ordination, as it was prac-
tised in St. Cyprian’s time; and I will give it you in his
own words. In his sixty-eighth Epistle according to the
Oxford edition, speaking of Novatian, he says*: “ And when
he had sent messengers to us into Africa, desiring to be ad-
mitted to our communion, here from a council of very many
of us bishops, who were present, he received this sentence,
that he had begun to exclude himself out of the Church, and
that it was not lawful for any of us to receive him to com-
munion, who, when Cornelius his bishop had been ordained
in the Catholic Church by the judgment of God, and the
suffrage of the clergy and of the people, attempted to erect
a profane altar, and set up an adulterous see, and offer sacri-
legious sacrifices in opposition to the true bishop.”

And in the Epistle immediately foregoing': “ Nor,” says
hey, “let the people flatter themselves, as if they could be free
from the contagion of the sin, while they communicate with
a bishop who is a sinner, and give their consent to the un-
just and unlawful episcopacy of their prelate. ... when they
(the people) especially have the power either of choosing

* Et cum ad nos in Africam legatos __tentaverit.—[S. Cypr. Epist. Ixvii.

misisset, optans ad communicationem
nostram admitti, hic a concilio pluri-
morum sacerdotum qui preesentes era-
mus sententiam retulerit, se foris esse
coepisse, nee posse a quoquam nostrum
sibi communicari, qui episcopo Cor-
nelio in catholica ecclesia de Dei judi-
cio et cleri ac plebis suffragio ordinato,
profanum altare erigere, et adulteram
cathedram collocare, et sacrilega con-
tra verum sacerdotem sacrificia offerre

(Ixvili. ed. Oxon.) Op., p. 115. ed.
Ben. ]

y Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi
immunis esse a contagio delicti possit,
cum sacerdote peceatore communicans,
et ad injustum atque illicitum praepo-
siti sui episcopatum consensum suum
commodans. ... Quando ipsa (plebs)
maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi
dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recu-
sandi. Quod et ipsum videmus de

437

worthy bishops, or of refusing such as are unworthy. Which
very thing we see also is derived from divine authority, that
the bishop be chosen in the presence of the people before all
their eyes, and by their public judgment and testimony be
approved of, as worthy and fit (for that sacred office ;) as in
the book of Numbers the Lord commanded Moses, saying :
‘Take Aaron thy brother and Eleazar his son, and bring
them up unto mount Hor, in the sight of all the congrega-
tion, and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon
Eleazar his son; and Aaron shall be gathered unto his peo-
ple, and shall die there.” God commands a priest to be made
in the sight of all the congregation; that is, He instructs
and shews them that the ordinations of priests were not to
be celebrated but with the knowledge of the people who
were to be there; that in the presence of the people, either
the crimes of the bad might be detected, or the merits of
the good be proclaimed; and the ordination be just and
lawful, which should be tried by the suffrage and judgment
of all... . For which reason that is to be diligently kept and
observed according to divine tradition and apostolic observa-
tion, which is also observed among us, and through almost
all the provinces, that in order to the due celebration of
ordinations, in the city for which a bishop is to be ordained
all the nearest bishops of the same province meet, and a
bishop be chosen in the presence of the people, who fully
know the lives of all the candidates, and have experienced
the behaviour of each of them by their conversation. Which
also we see to be done among you in the ordination of our
colleague Sabinus, that the dignity of bishop is conferred
upon him, and he ordained in the place of Basilides, by the

St. Cyprian, as described by himself.

tere, ut plebe przesente vel detegantur

divina auctoritate descendere, ut sacer-
malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita

dos plebe presente sub omnium oculis

deligatur, et dignus atque idoneus pub-
lico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur;
sicut in Numeris Dominus Moysi pre-
cepit, dicens: ‘Apprehende Aaron fra-
trem tuum, et Eleazarum filium ejus,
et impones eos in montem coram omni
synagoga, et exue Aaron stolam ejus,
et indue Eleazarum filium ejus, et
Aaron appositus moriatur illic.’ Coram
omni synagoga jubet Deus constitui
sacerdotem, id est, instruit et ostendit
ordinationes sacerdotales non nisi sub
populi assistentis conscientia fieri opor-

predicentur, et sit ordinatio justa et
legitima, que omnium suffragio et
judicio fuerit examinata.—[Id., Epist.
Ixviii. (Ixvii. ed. Oxon.) ibid., pp. 118,
sqq.] Propter quod diligenter de tra-
ditione divina et apostolica observatione
servandum est et tenendum, quod apud
nos quoque, et fere per provincias uni-
versas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite
celebrandas, ad eam plebem, cui pre-
positus ordinatur, episcopi ejusdem pro-
vinci proximi quique conveniant, et
episcopus deligatur plebe presente,

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI.

438. The testimony and consent only of the people required.

aprenpix. suffrage of the whole fraternity, and by the judgment of the

NO. VII.

bishops, who were assembled in your presence, and had wrote
letters concerning him to you.”

To this purpose also is that of Origen: “ Although,” says
he2, “the Lord had given command concerning the appoint-
ment of the high-priest, nay although the Lord had chosen
him, yet the congregation also is assembled: for the pre-
sence of the people is required in the ordination of a bishop,
that they all may know and be assured, that one who is
the most excellent among all the people, one who is the
most learned, the most holy, and the most eminent in all
virtue, that such a one is promoted to the episcopal dig-
nity: and this in the presence of the people, lest any one
should afterwards retract, or have any scruple in the matter.
And this is what the Apostle commanded in the ordination
of a bishop, saying: ‘Moreover he must have a good report
of them which are without,’” &c.

In these passages both St. Cyprian and Origen do very
clearly describe to us the most ancient method of ordination.
And it was performed after this manner: when any see was
vacant, all the bishops of the province, or at least such
as were nearest, met together, and chose and consecrated
to the vacant see a person of known learning and probity of
manners, recommended by the consent and testimony of
the people. Therefore neither St. Cyprian nor Origen do
ascribe to the people any other part in this matter, than that
of giving their testimony: by which means it was admirably
provided, that no unlearned or impious person should un-
awares steal into that most sacred office; therefore says St.
Cyprian, ‘‘the bishop is chosen in the presence of the people,

quz singulorum vitam plenissime no-
vit et uniuscujusque actum de ejus
conversatione perspexit. Quod et apud
vos factum videmus in Sabini college
nostri ordinatione, ut de universz fra-
ternitatis suffragio, et de episcoporum
qui in presentia convenerant, quique
de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio,
episcopatus ei deferretur, et manus ei
in locum Basilidis imponeretur.—{Id.,
ibid., p. 119.] :

* Licet Dominus de constituendo
pontifice pracepisset, et Dominus ele-
gisset, tamen convocatur et synagoga.
Requiritur enim in ordinando sacer-

dote presentia populi, ut sciant omnes
et certi sint quia qui prestantior est
ex omni populo, qui doctior, qui sanc-
tior, qui in omni virtute eminentior,
ille eligitur ad sacerdotium; et hoc
adstante populo, ne qua postmodum
retractio cuiquam, ne quis scrupulus
resideret. Hoc est autem quod et apo-
stolus precepit in ordinatione sacer-
dotis, dicens: ‘Oportet autem illum et
testimonium habere bonum ab his qui
foris sint,’ &e.—(1 Tim. iii. 7.) [Ori-
gen. in Lev. Hom. vi. (in cap. viii. 4.)

§ 3. Op., tom. ii. p. 216, B, C.]

The meaning of “ suffragium” as used by St. Cyprian. 439

before all their eyes, that by the judgment and testimony of
all he may be approved of, as worthy and fit for the sacred
office.” And Origen attests the same thing; for he says
“that the presence of the people is therefore required in the
ordination of a bishop, that they all may know and be assured,
that one who is the most excellent among all the people, one
who is the most learned, the most holy, and the most emi-
nent in all virtue, is promoted to the episcopal dignity.”
And to this purpose he cites that precept of the Apostle®,
“Moreover he must have a good report of them which are
without.” From whence it is sufficiently evident, that in
the judgment of Origen, nothing else belongs to the people
in this matter, but their testimony and consent.

But here it is wont to be urged by those who defend the
other side of the question, that bishops were chosen by the
“suffrages” of the people; and that in the age of St. Cy-
prian the suffrages of the people were always required to
a just and lawful ordination: and that this suffrage of theirs
must of necessity mean something more than either their
testimony or their bare consent; therefore the whole con-
troversy comes to this, what according to the African style
is to be understood by the word suffragium, “suffrage,” of
which St. Cyprian makes such frequent use, where he men-
tions any thing concerning ordinations.

2. Let us see therefore what St. Cyprian meant by the
word suffragium. And from hence, if Iam not much mis-
taken, it will appear still more clearly and evidently, that
the African people never had suffrages which were truly
elective.

In his treatise Concerning the Vanity of Idols, he has
this expression»: ‘They delivered Him to Pontius Pilate,
with violent and obstinate suffrages, requiring His cruci-
fixion and death.” That is, the wicked Jews did with most
importunate requests and united clamours beseech Pilate
that Jesus Christ might be crucified. What, had the people
of the Jews an equal authority with Pilate? could Pilate
determine nothing, especially in capital causes, without the

4 Sef bt adtdy Kal waptuplay KaAyy cem ejus et mortem suffragiis violentis
exe and Tay eEwOev. 1 Tim. iii. 7. ac pertinacibus flagitantes.—[S. Cypr.
b Pontio Pilato... tradiderunt; cru- de Idolorum Vanitate, Op., p. 228. ]

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI.

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

440 By “ suffragium,” St. Cyprian means only “ testimony.”

suffrages of the accusers? no such matter. It is very easy
to understand what St. Cyprian means by suffrages in this
place.

In his seventy-third Epistle are these words*: “ For that
which some say, as if what was said by the Apostle St. Paul
belonged to the suffrage of heretics,’ &c. Suffrage of here-
tics! What suffrage, I beseech you, does he mean? No
doubt he means their opinion, consent, and judgment.

It is rashly, therefore, and unlearnedly, or perhaps against
their own knowledge, that the wretched disciples of Erastus
contend that St. Cyprian, such and so great a man, is on
their side of the question, as one who frequently asserts that
bishops were elected by the suffrages of the people; for the
word suffragium in St.Cyprian has a far different meaning
from what they pretend. Nay, I shall not fear to affirm that
this word in the African dialect denotes nothing else but a
mere simple testimony. Let the reader consult these two
passages following, and weigh and compare them well to-
gether, and I make no doubt but he will be of my opinion.
“« And Cornelius,” says he4, “ was made a bishop by the judg-
ment of God, and of His Christ, and by the testimony of
almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were
then present, and by a college of ancient bishops and good
men,” &c. And again: “None,” says he*, “would move
any thing against the college of the bishops; no man after
the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after
the consent of the fellow-bishops, would make himself a
judge, not now of the bishop, but of God,” Se.

3. It remains that I prove that St. Cyprian did without
the people ordain ecclesiastical persons.

In his fortieth Epistle he recommends to the clergy and
people of Carthage Numidicus, a most glorious confessor,
who bore in his body the honourable marks of the Lord

° Quod enim quidam dicunt, quasi
ad hereticorum suffragium pertineat,
quod dixerit Apostolus Paulus, &e.—
Id., Epist. lxxiii. [ad Jubaianum de
hereticis baptizandis, Op., p. 133. ]

4 Factus est autem Cornelius epi-
scopus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio,
de clericorum pene omnium testimo-
nio, de plebis, que tunc affuit, suffra-
gio, et de sacerdotum antiquorum et

bonorum virorum collegio, &e.—[Id.,
Epist. lii. ad Antonianum, Op., p. 68. ]

e Nemo adversum sacerdotum colle-
gium quidquam.moveret; nemo post di-
vinum judicium, post populi suffragium,
post coepiscoporum consensum judi-
cem se jam non episcopi, sed Dei face-
ret, &c.—[Id., Epist. lv. ad Cornelium
cont. hzreticos, Op., p. 82. ]

He ordained clergy independently of the laity. 4.41

HUGHES

Jesus Christ‘, and was ordained by St. Cyprian; “ for,”
DISSERT, VI.

says he®, “I desire you may know that we were admonished
and instructed by the divine condescension to add Numidi-
cus, a presbyter, to the number of the presbyters of Car-
thage, that he may sit with us among the clergy, being ren-
dered illustrious by the most splendid brightness of his
confession, and sublime with the honour of virtue and
faith,” &c.

In his thirty-ninth Epistle he acquaints the same clergy
and people that Celerinus, an eminent confessor, was by him
chosen into the lesser order of Reader in the Church. ‘“ Re-
joice, therefore,” says he», ‘and be exceeding glad, when you
read our letter, wherein I, and my colleagues who were pre-
sent, send you word that our brother Celerinus, equally glo-
rious for his virtues and good life, is added to the number of
our clergy, not by the suffrage of men, but by the favour of
God.”

His thirty-eighth Epistle is also written to his clergy and
people, and begins thus': “ In ordinations of the clergy, most
dear brethren, we are wont first to consult you, and by com-
mon counsel to weigh the manners and merits of each per-
son; but there is no need of waiting for human testimonies
where we have already suffrages which are divine. Our bro-
ther Aurelius, an illustrious young man, already approved of
the Lord,” &c.; and almost at the end of the Epistle: “ Know
therefore, most dearly beloved brethren, that this person is
ordained by me, and my colleagues who were present.”

From this one Epistle these following particulars are very
easily deduced :

£ Gal. vi. 17.

§ Nam admonitos nos et instructos
sciatis dignatione divina, ut Numidicus
presbyter adscribatur presbyterorum
Carthaginiensium numero, et nobis-

conjunctum.—[ Id., Epist.xxxv.(xxxix.
ed. Oxon.) ad eosdem, de Celerino lec-
tore ordinato. Ibid., p. 47. |

i In ordinationibus clericis, fratres
carissimi, solemus vos ante consulere,

cum sedeat in clero, luce clarissima
confessionis illustris, et virtutis ac fidei
honore sublimis.—[Id., Epist. xxxv.
(xl. ed. Oxon.) ad Cler. et Pleb. de Nu-
midico, pp. 48, 49. ]

h Exultate itaque et gaudete nobis-
cum (lectis) literis nostris, quibus ego
et collegz mei, qui prasentes aderant,
referimus ad vos, Celerinum fratrem
nostrum, virtutibus pariter et moribus
gloriosum, clero nostro non humana
suffragatione, sed divina dignatione

HICKES,

et mores ac merita singulorum com-
muni consilio ponderare: sed expec-
tauda non sunt testimonia humana,
cum precedunt divina suffragia. Au-
relius frater noster, illustris adolescens,
a Domino jam probatus, &c.... Hune
igitur, fratres dilectissimi, a me et a
collegis, qui presentes aderant, ordi-
natum sciatis, —[Id., Epist. xxxiii.
(xxxviii. ed. Oxon.) ad eosdem, de
Aurelio lectore ordinato, Ibid., p. 46.]

S L

APPENDIX.
NO. VIIL.

44.2 Conclusions from St. Cyprian’s statements ;

1. That in ordinations of the clergy St. Cyprian was al-
ways accustomed to consult the people, and to desire their
judgment and testimony.

2. That the most holy martyr consulted the people in this
case for no other end but to weigh the manners and merits
of each person by common counsel, and by that means the
better to know their course of life.

3. That St. Cyprian did not think even this so necessary
as that without it no ordinations might be accounted legiti-
mate; but that when the necessity of the times required it,
it is certain that without either the advice, or testimony, or
suffrage of the people, he both nominated persons to be ad-
mitted into the clergy, and having nominated elected them,
and consecrated those he had thus elected.

And now let us look back upon the most ancient method
of ordination; let us consider likewise in what a loose sense
the word suffragium is used by St. Cyprian; and lastly, let
us refiect that sometimes St. Cyprian himself did both elect
and consecrate readers, deacons, and presbyters, without the
knowledge of the people. And after all this we shall very
easily perceive that there is nothing to be found in the Epi-
stles of that learned father which will either confirm the
power of the people or lessen the just authority of bishops.
From all which it is most evident that in St. Cyprian’s time
the people had no suffrages which were truly elective.

But here it may not be amiss to produce the words of the
most learned Bishop Beveridge, which very fully express my
sense of this matter. Having considered what St. Cyprian
says on this occasion, he adds‘, “It appears, therefore, that
the right of election belongs to the bishops; the testimony,
consent, and approbation of the election to the people.
Therefore the people sometimes proposed a person to be
chosen to the bishops, but the bishops did not always choose
the person proposed to them by the people; and therefore
the whole determination of the election was in the power of

k Jus igitur electionis ad episcopos
presentes, testimonium autem con-
sensus et electionis comprobatio, ad
plebem pertinuit. ... Plebs igitur epi-
scopis eligendum nonnunquam propo-
nebat; sed episcopi a plebe proposi-
tum non semper eligebant, ac proinde
totum electionis arbitrium penes epi-

scopos erat, usque adeo ut multas le-
gere sit episcopales ordinationes et
electiones etiam celebratas ab episcopis
sine plebe; a plebe autem sine episcopis
nullas.—Beveregii Annot. in iv. Can.
Con. Nic. [ad calc. tom. ii. Pandect.
Canonum, pp. 47, 48. ]

confirmed from Bp. Beveridge and Casaubon. 443

the bishops, insomuch that we may read of many ordinations
and elections of bishops performed by bishops without the
people, but of none by the people without bishops.” Thus
the whole matter is admirably comprised in a very few words
by that great man, than whom no one was more conversant
in ecclesiastical traditions.

And yet as clear and manifést as all this is, it may be still
more fully illustrated and confirmed by a remarkable pas-
sage in Lampridius, in his Life of the Emperor Alexander
Severus. ‘And because,” says he}, “we have happened to
mention the, publishing of the emperor’s orders, when he
had a mind either to put governors over provinces, or to
make presidents, or to appoint procurators, that is receivers,
he proposed their names, exhorting the people that if any
one had a crime to allege against any of them he should
make evident proof of it, and if he did not prove it he should
undergo capital punishment. And he said that it was hard
when that was done by the Christians and Jews in proclaim-
ing those who were to be ordained their priests, that the
same should not be done with respect to the governors of
provinces, to whose care were entrusted both the fortunes
and lives of men.”

On this passage the learned Casaubon has the following
note™: “The writings of St. Cyprian are full of testimonies
of this custom, as when in his forty-third Epistle he writes
thus: ‘In ordinations of the clergy, most dear brethren, we
are wont first to consult you, and by common counsel to
weigh the manners and merits of each person.’ But out of
many places of St. Cyprian which make for this purpose I

! Et quia de publicandis disposi-
tionibus mentio contigit, ubi aliquos
voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare,
vel prepositos facere, vel procuratores,
id est, rationales ordinare, nomina
eorum propozebat, hortans populum,
ut siquis quid haberet criminis, proba-
ret manifestis rebus; si non probas-
set, subiret poenam capitis; dicebatque
grave esse, quum id Christiani et Judzi
facerent in predicandis sacerdotibus
qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provin-
ciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortune
hominum committerentur et capita,
—fBlii Lampridii Alexander Seve-
rus, [cap. 45. ap. Historie Auguste

Scriptores Sex; tom.i. p. 197. Lugd.
Bat. 1671. ]

m Plena sunt beati Cypriani scripta
testimoniis hujus moris, ut cum Epi-
stola xxxiv. [xxxiii. p.46. ed. Ben. ] scri-
bit: ‘in ordinationibus clericis, fratres
charissimi, solemus vos ante consulere,
et mores ac merita singulorum com-
muni consilio ponderare.’ Sed ex plu-
ribus Cypriani locis qui hue faciunt,
unum afferemus, ex quo potest intelligi,
et predicari sacerdotes quid sit, et
quam bene Christiani et Judzi in ob-
servatione hujus moris ab Alexandro
conjungantur. Sic igitur ille postquam
retulit, quomodo Eleazarus Aaronis

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI,

APPENDIX.

NO. VIII.

444. The proper part and duty of the laity as to ordinations ;

will produce one, by which it may be understood both what
is to be meant by ‘ proclaiming such as are to be ordained
priests,’ and how well the Christians and Jews are by the
Emperor Alexander here joined together with respect to the
observance of this custom. Thus, therefore, having related
how Eleazar, the son of Aaron, was made priest, ‘ God,’ says
he, ‘commands a priest to be*made in the sight of all the
congregation, that is, He instructs and shews them that the
ordinations of priests were not to be celebrated but with the
knowledge of the people who were to be there; that in the
presence of the people either the crimes of the bad might be
detected, or the merits of the good be proclaimed, and the
ordination be just and lawful, which should be tried by the
judgment of all.’”

If, therefore, any credit may be given to Casaubon, a man
of great skill in all kinds of learning, St. Cyprian means
nothing else by “the suffrage of the people” but their con-
sent, testimony, and approbation.

In the sixth canon of the council of Chalcedon this publi-
cation of names is called éuxnpvévs, “ notification by a pub-
lic crier.” The canon provides” “That none be ordained ab-
solutely, (or without a title to any particular Church,) either
priest or deacon, or to any one whatsoever of the ecclesiasti-
cal orders, but that his intended ordination be first publicly
notified in the church of the city or village, or in the chapel
or monastery ;” to wit, that all such may be recommended
by the testimony of the people, and “ either their crimes be
detected or their merits proclaimed.” The laity had always
this power, and the same power is allowed them by the
Church of England. We really congratulate them on this
authority in the elections of the clergy, and earnestly de-
sire them to use the greatest integrity in a matter of
such mighty importance. How magnificently would the

filius sacerdos fuisset creatus: [ Epist.
Ixviii. p. 118. ed. Ben.] ‘ Coram omni
synagoga,’ inquit, ‘jubet Deus constitui
sacerdotem: id est, instituit et ostendit
ordinationes sacerdotales non nisi sub
populi assistentis conscientia fieri opor-
tere, ut plebe presente vel detegantur
malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita
predicentur: et sit ordinatio justa et
legitima, que omnium suffragio et ju-

dicio fuerit examinata.’—[ Is. Casaubon.
Annott. in loc., ibid. ]

n undéva amoAcAumevws xeELpoToveEl-
oOat, utjre mpecBUTepov, ATE Sidkovoy,
MATE OAws TIA TOY ey exKANTLATTIK@
TAYMaTL Ei MY (OiK@s ev exkAnoia TOAEwS
} Kaduns, 2} paptupiy 7) uovaornpto 6
XEtpoTovovmevos emiKnpvTToLTo.—| Cone.
Chaleed. (A.D.451.) Can. vi. Concilia,
tom. iv. col, 1684, D, E.]

increase of their power in the fourth century. 4.45

Church of England triumph, if all of us, as well clergy as
laity, would with united forces endeavour that no one dis-
tinguished for his impieties, no one defiled with the pollu-
tion of a vicious life, no one notorious for foul and infamous
crimes, should profane the sacred dignity of the priesthood.
Here is abundantly room enough for the zeal of the faithful
to exert itself with the greatest advantage. But they who
assuthe to themselves a greater power, who claim a right
both of nominating and electing: all these, believe me, have
no regard to piety and to the honour of the Church, and
to the salvation of souls, but only sacrifice to ambition and
a wicked desire of rule.

Thus, in my opinion, I have sufficiently proved that the
laity had never any truly elective suffrages in the elections
of the clergy during the second and third centuries, but that
a plenary authority in all such elections appertained to the
bishops. The people sometimes proposed a person to the
choice of the bishop, but the bishop very often rejected the
person they proposed. Therefore nothing can be gathered
from the monuments of the primitive Church that makes
for the cause of Erastianism, which the numerous spawn of
Socinus do with so much industry endeavour to propagate.

Yet it ought not to be denied that at length in the fourth
century the power of the people in the elections of bishops
increased prodigiously, and exceeded all bounds. Of this
licentious power of the people the most holy fathers do very
frequently complain. St. Jerome, in his first book against
Jovinian, has these words°®: “Sometimes the judgment of
the common people is wrong, and in approving bishops every
one favours his own manners, and seeks not so much for a
good bishop as for one like himself.’ And this is abun-
dantly confirmed from the second Apology of St. Athana-
sius?, and St. Gregory Nazianzen’s nineteenth and twen-
tieth Epistles’. Hence it very often came to pass that
persons most unworthy, remarkable neither for learning nor

° Nonnunquam errat plebis vulgique P[S. Athanas. Apologia cont. Aria-
judicium, et in sacerdotibus compro- _ nos. Op., tom. i. p. 123, sqq. ]
bandis unusquisque suis moribus paret, 4 [S. Greg. Naz. Epist. xix. ad Ba-

ut non tam bonum, quam sui similem _ silium. Op., tom. ii. pp. 18, 19. et
querat prepositum.—S. Hieron. ady. Epist. xiv. (al. xx.) ad Eusebium, ibid.,
Jovinian., lib. i, [e. 34. Op., tom, ii. col, pp. 16, 17.]

292, A.]

HUGHES
DISSERT. VI.

APPENDIX.
No. Vill.

446 Councils of the fourth century restraining the power of

piety, did, what with the importunate clamours of the com-
mon people, and the too great indulgence of the bishops,
both invade and miserably defile the sacred offices of the
Church. And this great mischief daily spreading, there
were various provisions made against it.

1. I shall never be persuaded to believe but that the fourth
canon of the council of Nice has relation to this matter. The
words of it are these: “ A bishop ought to be ordained ‘espe-
cially indeed by all the bishops who are in the province. But
if that be difficult, what through some urgent business, or
the length of the journey hindering them, yet three bishops
at least ought by all means to meet together, and first re-
ceiving by letter the consent and agreement of those that
are absent, there to celebrate the ordination. But in every
province the authority or confirmation of what is done shall
belong to the metropolitan.” In this canon two things
are provided. Ist. That all the bishops of the province, or
three at least, in case of the utmost necessity, be present
at the ordination of a bishop. 2ndly. That the confirmation
of the ordination thus administered should belong only to
the metropolitan of the province. But concerning the suf-
frages or judgment of the people there is not the least word
mentioned; for all which the venerable fathers meant was,
that the levity and insolence of the giddy multitude being
suppressed, ecclesiastical matters might be managed only
by ecclesiastics.

The Nicene council was succeeded by that of Laodicea;
for that the synod of Laodicea was held after the general
council of Nice is most manifest from hence, because it
makes mention of the Photinian heretics, who arose after
the times of the Nicene council’. This synod affords us two
canons, which make for my purpose. They are the twelfth
and thirteenth, in these words‘: “That bishops ought to be
appointed to the government of the Church by the judgment

* énlokotov mpoonke: pdAloTa pev
imdb mavtTav Tov ev TH emapxla Kablo~
Tacbat* ef 5& Sucxepes en Td ToL0vTO, 7)
bid karemelyouray avayiny, 2) did wijKos
6900, ef Gmravtos tpets em) Td adTd cuva-
Yyouevous, cuubhowy ywoudvey Kal TeV
amdvtwy, kal cuvTiBeuevwv Sid ypauud-
Twv, TOTE THY XELpoToVlay ToLeiabat. Td

d€ Kdpos Tav yiwoueve Bidd08a Kal?
éxdotny emapxiay TH pnTpoToA(ty.—
[Cone. Nic. Canon iy. Concilia, tom. i.
col. 34, E. 35, A.]

8 (See Annot. 2. in Conc. Laod. ap.
Concilia, tom. i. col. 1529. ]

t aepl tov tovs émickdmous Kploe
T&Y UNTpoTOAIT@Y Kad ToY mépiE emioKd-

the laity ; which they exercised only by permission. 447

of the metropolitans and of the neighbouring bishops; and
that they ought to be such as have been long approved by
the word of faith, and by the dispensation of right doc-
trine ;” and canon thirteenth: “That the people are not
to be allowed to make choice of those who are to be em-
ployed in the sacred function.” I am of opinion with the
most illustrious Peter de Marca", that this prohibition ought
not to be extended to persons of honour and great men, but
was made only for the common people. Yet from this canon
we learn at least these following particulars: that the great-
est disturbances were occasioned by the people’s authority in
the elections of bishops, insomuch that the council found it
necessary utterly to abolish this corrupt and unjust practice,
and wholly to exclude the multitude from all both consent,
and testimony, and approbation. From hence it may also
with the greatest perspicuity be collected that the multitude
of the faithful had not by divine right either suffrage or tes-
timony in the elections of bishops; for if this power had
belonged to the people by divine right it could never have
been extinguished by a synod, and that especially by a par-
ticular synod. We are most clearly taught by this canon
what was the opinion of the prelates even of the fourth cen-
tury concerning the licentious power of the people.

3. But all this will be still farther confirmed by the coun-
cil of Antioch, the eighteenth canon of which runs thus*:
“Tf any one that is ordained a bishop do not come to the
diocese for which he is chosen, not through his own fault,
but either because the people refuse him, or for any other
reason occasioned by no fault of his, he shall enjoy both the
honour and the function, provided he give no disturbance to
the affairs of the Church where he abides. And he shall

mov Kabioracbat els THY EKKANOLACTIK}Y
apxhv, bvtas ek modkAod SedoKimacpe-
vous TE TH Ady THS TigTEws, Kal TH
Tov evbéos Adyou moAtTela.—Conc.
Laod., Can. xii. [Concilia, tom. i. col.
1533, A.]

mepl Tov pi TOIs OXAOLS emiTpereL
Tas ekAoyas Toleiobar THY MEeAAdYTOY
Kabicracba eis iepareiov.—ld., Can.
xiii, [ibid. ]

u [Pet. de Marca de Concordia
Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. vii. c. 2. § 6,
7. tom. ii. p. 307. ed. Par. 1669. ]

Xx ef Tis emickoTos xeELpoTovnbels eis
mapoilav pn amrédAOn els hy exetpo-
Tovnen ov Tapa THv EavTod aitiav, GAD’
Fro. bia Thy TOD Aaod mapaltnow, } BC
étépay aitiay ovx e& avrovd yevouerny,
TOUTOV METEXEL THS TILAS Kal THS Aet-
Toupyias, pdvoy pndev mapevoxAodyra,
Tois mpdyuact THs exkAnolas, evOa by
cuvayolro. exdéxecbat O¢ TovTOY, d by H
Tis ewapxlas TeAcla obvodos Kplyaca Td
mapiotduevov dpion.—[ Conc. Antioch.
Canon xviii. Concilia, tom. ii. col. 592,
E. 593, A.]

HUGHES
DISSERT, VI.

APPENDIX.

No. VIII.

1 hitherto

also, ed. 3.]

448 Power of the Metropolitans increased ;

wait for the determination which a full synod of the pro-
vince shall make upon the judgment of his case.”

What, I desire to know, are we to think of this canon?
It makes little, in my opinion, for the power of the laics.
Nay, it most evidently demonstrates that the Church of the
fourth century did not so much as dream of this right of the
laity, whether divine or original, or whatever other title they
are pleased to honour it with. The council commands in
express words that a bishop duly ordained by the bishops of
the province, and confirmed by the metropolitan according
to the ancient canons, ought to remain a bishop, and per-
form the episcopal functions, though the laity make never
so much opposition. This was the method of the elections
of the fourth century. But afterwards the metropolitans
obtained a much larger power, not without a very great ad-
vantage to the Church. They appointed a synod of bishops
in their own Churches; hither they summoned the bishops,
and by their common counsel set pastors over the Churches.
To this purpose is that of St. Gregory Nazianzen’: “Ye
have called me to the metropolis, I suppose, to take some
consultations about a bishop.” The people had even yet’
power to propose a person to be ordained, and to desire the
bishops to set him over them; but the nomination and
election belonged only to the metropolitan in council with
his provincial bishops. Nay, without the metropolitan’s
leave they had not power to take to themselves so much as
a vacant bishop (as the canonists speak.) This we are most
plainly taught by the sixteenth canon of the council of An-
tioch, in these words’: “If any vacant bishop shall come into
a vacant church, and by stealth invade the throne, without
leave of a full synod, he ought to be ejected, though all the
people whom he has invaded have chosen him for their
Now that is called a full synod in which the me-
And this very canon is

bishop.
tropolitan bishop is also present.”

Y KekAhKare Huds ml THY unTpoToAL,
©s oiwat, wep émickdmov tt BovdAcvad-
P = A cee
mevu.—Greg. Naz. Epist. xliii. [ Op.
* 5 z
tom. il. p. 38. ed. Par. 1840. ]
ef tis énlokoros oxoAdCwy emt oXo-
Aafovoay exkAnolay éavtdy emippl
nolay eauToy emippivas,
3 45
tbpapmavo Tov Cpdvoy Sixa ouvddov Te-

Aelas, tTovtov amdBAnrov elvat, Kal et
mas 6 Nads, dv Spdpracer, EXoLTO avTdY,
Tedelav de exeivny elvat ovvOdOY, 7 TUM=
mdpeott Kal 6 pntpomoAitns.—|[ Cone.
Antioch. Canon xvi. Concilia, tom. ii.

col, 592, D.]

that of the laity ultimately taken away. 449

quoted by the fathers of the council of Chalcedon in the nvenes
eleventh session, in which the cause of Bassianus is pleaded? ~~

This full power in elections remained in the metropolitans
to the time of the Emperor Justinian, so that they elected
bishops without the consent or testimony of the people. But
it is beyond the limits of my purpose to follow it any farther.
It is sufficient for me to have shewn the practice of the
second and third and fourth centuries; that from thence we
may clearly discern what power in elections of bishops was
allowed to the Christian people, even in the purest ages of
the Church; and for what reasons it was necessary, as that
power increased daily, and became insolent, first to restrain
it, and at last wholly to abolish it.

From all this history of the primitive Church these follow-
ing particulars do most evidently appear :

lst. That in the most ancient times of the Church the
people had no suffrages which were truly elective.

2ndly. That all that power which they afterwards exer-
cised was not derived from any divine or original right, but
from the leave and indulgence and corrupt remissness of the
bishops.

3rdly. That the Church did for most just causes, and by
a most just authority, abrogate this tumultuary method of
ordaining, and restrain the mad rage of the people within
its proper bounds.

THE CONCLUSION.

This is what I thought fit to say concerning these most
important controversies. What judgment others will make
of what I have said it is neither easy to conjecture nor safe
to enquire. And yet I am not unwilling to believe, at least
Iam apt to flatter myself, that what has been here said will
not displease such as are impartial judges, and true and
orthodox sons of the Church of England. Upon a serious
review of these Dissertations I have been able to find nothing
in them which is not abundantly confirmed both by the holy
Scriptures, and by the most ancient and uncorrupt judgment

a [Cone. Chalced. Actio xi. Concilia, tom. iv. col. 1609, D.]
HICKES, 3M

450 Conclusion.

avrespix. Of the Catholic Church. For which reason I am willing to

Aw hope that the sound and entire part of the Christian world,
who are addicted to no parties, and have Christ and His
Church only at heart, will be of my opinion, and with their
suffrages readily confirm all that I have said.

AN ADVERTISEMENT CONCERNING THE TWO PRECEDING TRANSLA-
TIONS OF ISAAC CASAUBON DE LIBERTATE ECCLESIASTICA, AND
OF MR. HUGHES’ PRELIMINARY DISSERTATIONS *.

I neED say but very little concerning the former of these
translations. Having undertaken it at the command of the
Rey. Dr. Hickes, (for whatever he condescends to request,
though in his usual obligmg manner, will always have the
authority of a command with me,) after I had almost finished
it upon the late Amsterdam edition in folio, which is very
uncorrect, especially in the Greek quotations, I had an op-
portunity of consulting the author’s own edition, printed in
the year 1607, in 8vo.°, and of verifying from thence many of
the corrections I had already made, though neither is that
impression without faults. As to the author’s citations,
those of them which I had convenience of examining, though
not easily found for want of more particular references, yet
appearing when found to be faithfully set down, I was the
less concerned to enquire into the rest, and contented my-
self to give the English reader only a translation of most of
them.

But as to Mr. Hughes’ Preliminary Dissertations, (for
the insertion of which into this Appendix I had no more
than the permission of Dr. Hickes, having been engaged in
that translation by another,) I found the errors of the press
so many, and the negligence of those whom I suppose the
author employed in transcribing the citations, so great, that
I thought it necessary to take the pains of examining them
all, excepting some few which I am not able to find, what
for want of references in some places, and through the un-
correctness of them in others, and a few also for which I had
not the convenience of books. And when I had taken this
pains, I judged it would be both for the advantage of the
book to put down all the citations in the margin as I had
corrected them from the authors themselves, and also for the
benefit of the reader to give him them sometimes more fully
than the learned author thought it necessary to do, who wrote

* [This Advertisement is that of the > [For an account of the editions

Translator, Hilkiah Bedford,see above, here referred to, see above, pp. 97,
vol. i, p. 33. ] 253. |

TRANSLA-

TOR’S AD-

VERTISE-
MENT.

452 What has been done by the Translator of the Dissertations.

arrenpix. only to such as are supposed to be well enough acquainted

<°***— with the books he cites to be usually able from the least sen-
tence of them to understand what they are alleged to prove ;
whereas those who are strangers to these authors cannot so
readily enter into the force of such arguments without also
seeing some part of the context.

And because the learned author has actually divided this
work into six dissertations, though for want of distinguish-
ing them a little more in the impression the whole does
rather seem no more than one, and the reader is for some
time at a loss why the title is expressed in the plural, there-
fore I thought it convenient to make this division more con-
spicuous, and by adding the proper figures to his subdivi-
sions, where they are often wanting, to render his method,
which is very good, more apparent to the reader ‘at the first
sight: for whose farther benefit I also judged it not amiss
to prefix, by way of plan to the whole work, the contents of
each dissertation, as we see done by Casaubon himself before
that piece of his which I have translated.

One passage in the fifth dissertation (p. 494°) may be ha-
ble to misconstruction, where the author, in answer to an
argument for lay administration of the Sacrament of {the
Lord’s Supper, brought from the first institution of the
sacrifice of the Passover, in the room of which this sacrifice
and Sacrament succeeds, may seem to own too much, when
he grants that the Passover was appointed to be sacrificed in
private houses, and by the fathers of families. But what he
there asserts must be confined to the times before the insti-
tution of the Levitical priesthood, when the fathers of fami-
lies were priests, and their own dwellings were all the tem-
ples they had: for after the Levitical priesthood was insti-
tuted the paschal lamb was sacrificed neither privately nor by
the fathers of families, but the place of celebrating this feast
was one where all the people could meet, which ever since
King David’s time was Jerusalem, and the ministers of this
sacrifice were the priests and the Levites. Of both these
facts we have this undoubted proof, viz. :

Ist. With regard to the place. In the 16th of -Deutero-
nomy (ver. 2 and 5) there is this command: “Thou shalt

Hughes’ slatements about the Passover corrected. 453

therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God .... rransra-
in the place which the Lord shall choose to place His name pecinees
therew:.s. . Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within —™®S™ _
any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Ac-
cordingly we read in the 2nd book of the Chronicles (chap.
xxx. 1) that “ Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and
wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they
should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep
the passover unto the Lord God of Israel.”” And (chap. xxxv.
1) that “ Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord in Jerusalem.”
And to omit many instances of the like nature in Josephus,
we find in St. Luke (chap. 1. 41, 42) that it was “the cus-
tom of this feast to go up to Jerusalem every year.” And
in compliance with this custom, that our blessed Saviour
Himself, when but yet a child, was carried thither by His
parents, who “went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the
passover.” ‘Thus much with regard to the place. And then,
2ndly. With respect to the ministers of this sacrifice, we
may observe in the passover of Hezekiah above mentioned
that the priests and the Levites were chiefly concerned in the
celebration of it. ‘The priest” (says the text, 2 Chron. xxx.
16) “sprinkled the blood, which they received of the hand
of the Levites.” And (ver. 17) “the Levites had the charge
of the killing of the passovers.” So also at Josiah’s passover
we read (2 Chron. xxxv. 10, 11) that “the priests stood in
their place, and the Levites in their courses... .. and they
killed the passover, and the priests sprinkled the blood from
their hands, and the Levites flayed them.” For the same
reason probably which was given before, (chap. xxix. 34,)
because “the priests were too few, so that they could not
flay all the burnt-offerings, wherefore their brethren the Le-
vites did help them.” Of this latter passover Josephus says,
(Antiq. Jud., ib. x. cap. 54,) Exaotou Tov lepéwv eEnyoupévou
Tots dynovs, “that each of the priests administered to the
people.” Hence the learned Grotius observes®, “that when
Cestius enquired what was the number of the Jews who as-

4 (Joseph. Ant. Jud., lib.x.c. 4. (al. sacrificati. . . quod profecto exacte di-
5.) Op., p. 440. ed. Hudson. | cere non potuissent, nisi ipsi inter-
© [Sacerdotes, Cestio querenti quis fuissent mactationi.—Grotii Annot. in
numerus esset Judzorum Hierosolyma Matt. xxvi. 18, ap. Crit. Saer., tom. vi.
convenientium, exacte dixerimt quot col. 894. |
fuissent in paschate agni aut heedi

APPENDIX.

NO. VIL.

454: Mis argument strengthened by this correction.

sembled at Jerusalem, the priests resolved him in that matter
by giving him the exact number of lambs and kids sacrificed
there at the passover, which (says that excellent commenta-
tor) they could not have done with that exactness if them-
selves had not been present at the sacrifice.”

Though, therefore, what the learned author here asserts,
that the passover was sacrificed by the fathers of families in
their own houses, must be confined to the times before the
institution of the Levitical priesthood ; yet that is so far from
diminishing, that it apparently augments the force of his
argument. For while this sacrifice was thus administered
by the fathers of families, those fathers of families were the
priests ; and ever since the institution of the Levitical priest-
hood only the Levitical priests were the ministers of it, so
that there is not the least appearance of lay administration
in the paschal sacrifice, nor consequently the least pretence
for it im the eucharistical (which succeeds in the room of
that) to be drawn from the paschal; but on the contrary,
because the passover was always sacrificed by persons set
apart for sacred offices, and by no others, it hence follows,
according to our adversaries’ own argument, that the holy
Eucharist, which was instituted in the place of the passover,
ought also to be administered only by such as are appointed
to that and other sacred functions of God’s worship, and not
to be profaned by lay hands.

Before I conclude this advertisement, it may be expected
I should give some account of the learned author of these
excellent dissertations; but as the dissertations themselves
do abundantly shew what a great loss the Church of Christ
in general, as well as in particular the Church of England,
has had in the too early death of one who at those green
years was so able a champion for both’, so I am obliged, in
justice as well to his memory as to all that have a due re-
gard to it, to leave the performance of this work, which is
not more necessary to be done than I am uncapable to do it
as it ought, to a much abler hand, which to my great satis-
faction I hear has already undertaken it®.

< [See above, vol. i. p. 32, note g.] any account such as is here referred
& |The Editor cannot ascertain that to was ever published. ]

PP Nope Ne
No. 9.

[LESTIMONIES FROM DR. THOMAS JACKSON TO THE DOCTRINES
OF THE TWO TREATISES. |

DR. THOMAS JACKSON, IN HIS SECOND BOOK OF COMMENTS
UPON THE APOSTLES’ CREED, 0. 5. cap. 4. p. 188. Edit. 16733.

“ Obey them that have the oversight of you,” &c. © What sacxsoy.
manner of submission, or what kind of obedience doth he Heb. 13. 17.
here exact? Only spiritual, will the carnal gospeller reply.

But what manner of obedience is this spiritual? the least
of all others? it is, doubtless, in their esteem, which fear no
loss, but what is sensible for the present; or know not the
virtue of any thing but what is palpable: unto all such to be
spiritual is all one as to be invisible; and to be invisible
is all one as not to be at all. This is the last resolution
of most men’s conceit of all spiritual authority in our times.
But such as dread the majesty of that invisible God, and
fear to grieve His Holy Spirit, will be most afraid of con-
temning spiritual authority. Disobedience to it, though in
a prince, is as hateful to the King of kings, as the sin of
witchcraft : for no subject is more bound to obey his prince
in civil actions, than his pastors in spiritual. He that said,
“Touch not Mine anointed ;” said also, “ Do My prophets no Ps. 103. 15.
harm.” Of princes it is said by the Apostle, “He that resisteth Rom. 13. 2.
them, resisteth God ;” to pastors it was said, (by the Wisdom
of God, by whom princes reign,) “He that heareth you, hear- Luke 10. 16.
eth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that
despiseth Me, cdespiseth Him that sent Me.” And elsewhere,
“Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: whose sins ye John26.23.
retain, they are retained.” ‘These are prerogatives of priests;
and were not esteemed as words of course or formality in the
ancient and primitive Church.

a {This passage occurs in vol. i. pp. President of Corpus Christi College,

350, 351, of the collected Works of Oxford, and Dean of Peterborough ;
Thomas Jackson, D.D., sometime Oxford, 1844.]

4.56 The obedience due to spiritual governors.

APPENDIX. b
NO, IX. Tarp:, 1. ‘6. p, 189°.

Unless the flock, for their parts, had been bound to strict
obedience, usurpation of lordship over them had not been so
easy ; especially when there was no power besides the pas-
toral staff to keep them under: nor could their pastors have
had any such opportunity to attempt it, as might justly
occasion these caveats from these two Apostles, (i.e. St. Peter
and St. Paul,) which by their (own) moderate carriage had
prescribed a contrary example to their successors ... The
first mischief which befel her (i. e. the Church) in her
prime, was from the want of due reverence and awful re-
gard of ecclesiastical injunctions and constitutions. Hence
did heresies spring in such abundance; Satan had sown
their seeds in proud hearts, and the civil magistrates’ facility
to countenance every prating discontent, or forth-putting
vocalist, in preaching what he list, though contrary to his
(spiritual) governors’ constitutions, was as the spring-sun
to cherish and bring them forth.

Boox II. ch. vin. n. 5. p. 210°.

Nor do spiritual governors, in demanding obedience to
such (injunctions or constitutions) as their inferiors suspect
to be against God’s law, oppose human authority to divine,
or desire men to obey them rather than God, as some
frivolously have objected. Indeed the least probability or
suspicion of disobeying God should make us refuse to obey
man, in case our disobedience unto man redounded only
to man, and not to God. But inasmuch as Christ hath said,

Luke 10. “he that heareth you, heareth Me,” disobedience unto spiri-
tual governors is disobedience unto Christ, yea unto God.

PREFACE TO DR. JACKSON’S TENTH BOOK OF COMMENTS ON
THE APOSTLES’ CREED, § 9. Edit. 1654.

And here now, besides what is said above of the great
excellency of Christ’s priesthood, the entertainment of three
or four meditations ... doth render me wonder-struck at four
sorts of men, most active in this busy age. 1. At such

» [Jackson’s Works, ibid., p. 352.] ¢ [Ibid., p. 393.]

Opposite errors respecting the Christian Ministry. 457

as think it a piece of their Christianity to loath and despite
the name of priest, as of some pernicious vermin bred
out of a putrid Jewish carcase ; whereas it signifies neither
less nor more than a person entrusted (and who is sufficient
for that thing ?) with some part or branch of Christ’s priest-
hood, which is here on earth to be managed and executed
for the benefit of mankind; even of him that so hates the
name. 2. That the bishop of that ancient see apostolic
should, by virtue of such a dim commission as cannot be
read without spectacles of phantasy made at Rome, grasp
at all in gross, as if all power, which Christ Himself doth not
personally exercise in the heavenly sanctuary, was to pass
and be derived by imposition, or under the signature of
his hand, and to be shared and dispensed at his discretion.
3. That those our brethren in Christ (if yet they will allow
us to call them brethren, which have well-nigh given over to
say Pater noster) who so zealously hate innovations, should
contrary to the Church practice of fifteen ages together, not
only (1.) take upon them to ordain or commissionate men
to execute part of Christ’s priesthood, and (2.) to censure
offenders, without consent of that order, which hath so fair
a patent to shew, and so long prescription, some while for
the sole power, always for the main stroke in both: but even
(5.) to censure and excommunicate some persons of that
order, and (4.) the very order itself ... which hath in effect
proved the cutting off that goodly bough, whereof themselves
were branches, &c. 4. That the volunteers of the people,
who have improved the former transgression of removing the
ancient Church marks, which our fathers had set... toa
total demolition ; casting off the sons who had cast out their
fathers, and the branches which had plucked up their own
roots; and so succeeding both as augmenters and revengers
of the sin: especially that any which among them pretend
to the fear of God, and love our great High-Priest, should
not scruple at all to execrate all consecration of persons to
serve in Christ’s stead, and yet dub themselves officers, when
(as God knows) they be as far from abilities to discharge,
as they are from authority to undertake the duty.

HICKES. 3 N

JACKSON.

APPENDIX,

NO. IX.

John 20, 23.

Matt. 9. 2.

458 Of Absolution, and powers of the Christian Ministry.

Book X. ch. lvi. n. 4. p. 306. Edit. 16734.

We His (Christ’s) priests, or ministers, may upon con-
fession made unto us, either in general or in particular,
absolve His people from their sins; for this authority He hath
given us, “ Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted: whose
sins,” &c. Yet unless He by His Spirit, or sweet influence
of grace, say unto the soul whom we absolve, as He some-
times did unto the man sick of the palsy, “Be of good
cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee,” our absolution is but
a compliment; although without our absolution He do not
in this sort absolve His people oftentimes from their sins.
We may consecrate the elements of bread and wine, &c.

Boox XI. ch. xxxviii. n. 7, p. 690°.

The men that seek to be most contrary to the Romish
Church, and are most forward to judge her for enlarging the
prerogative of the priesthood beyond its ancient bounds, do
the same things she doth by equivalency, and run to the
same end by a quite contrary way.... He that robs God of
His honour doth the very same thing and no other which an
idolater doth. Now they are said in Scripture to rob God of
His honour, and to commit an abomination more than heathen-
ish, (for the heathen do not spoil their gods,) which defraud
Him of His tithes and offerings which were due unto the
priest for his ministration and service in God’s house. But
they rob God of His honour more immediately and more
directly which despise or contemn His ambassadors, not in
word only, but in taking that authority from them which
He hath expressly given unto them; and which is worst of
all, in seeking to alienate it unto them over whom He hath,
in matter of salvation, appointed them guides and overseers.

4 [Jackson’s Works, vol. ix. pp. 609, 610.] ¢ [Ibid., vol. xi. p. 175. ]

Ae PE WN. Dele Xe
No. 10.

SANCTI PATRIS NOSTRI EPHREM SYRI, DIACONI ECCLES] EH EDESSENZ
RELIGIOSISSIMI DE SACERDOTIO®,

INTERPRETE ET SCHOLIASTE GERARDO VOSSIO TUNGRENSI. COLONIG 1616.

O mMiIRACULUM stupendum! O potestas ineffabilis! O tre-
mendum sacerdotii mysterium, spiritale ac sanctum, vene-
randum et irreprehensibile, quod Christus in hunc mundum
veniens, etiam indignis impertitus est: genu posito lacry-
mis atque suspiriis oro, ut hunc sacerdoti thesaurum in-
spiciamus, thesaurum inquam his, qui eum digne et sancte Mare. 14.
custodiunt. Scutum siquidem est refulgens et incomparabile,
turris firma, murus indivisibilis, fundamentum solidum ac a 20.

S. EPHREM.
DE SACERD.

Matt. 26.
26—28.

22—24,
Luc. 22.

oan. 13.

stabile, a terra ad axem usque cceli pertingens: quid dico 1 Cor. 11.
fratres, excelsos illos axes contingi? imo in ipsos ceelos
celorum sine impedimento atque labore ascendit, et in sacerdotii.
medio angelorum simul cum spiritibus incorporeis facile

versatur.

Quid dico in medio supernarum virtutum? quin

et cum ipso angelorum Domino atque Creatore, datoreque
luminum, familiariter agit ; et quantum vult, confestim que

postulat, facile et suo jure quodammodo impetrat.

Non

desisto fratres laudare et glorificare ilhus dignitatis profun-
ditatem, quam nobis, nobis inquam Adee filiis sancta elargita

* [This number is added to the Ap-
pendix from the Supplement of 1716.
No.17. Some errors in that reprint
have been corrected trom the Latin of
Vossius’ edition.

The Greek from which the version
was made, is printed in the Works of
St. Ephrem Syrus, tom. iii, pp. 1—6.
ed. Rome, 1746. It was found in a
MS. of St. Ephrem’s Opuscula, in the
Library of the Fathers of the Oratory
at Paris.—ibid., tom. i. Prolegomena,
p-. lxxi. This Latin version was first
printed in the edition of St. Ephrem’s
Works, by Ger. Vossius, tom. i. p. 1.
Rom. 1589.

The Greek is also printed in the
Benedictine edition of St. Chiysos-
tom’s Works, among the Spuria, tom. i.

p- 805, as a seventh book of his treatise
de Sacerdotio, with the following Moni-
tum; (ibid., p. 804.) ‘* Liber septimus
Chrysostomo adscriptus de sacerdotio
extat in quibusdam manuscriptis, in
Coisliniano eexly. undecimi seculi, et
in Taurinensi quodam, cujus amdéypa-
gov manu et dono V. C, D.que Pfaffi
penes me habeo. Est vero inepti cu-
jusdam Greculi commentum, ut nemo
non videat, Hesi aliquandiu, an pub-
licum facerem necne ; quia vero in an-
tiquis codicibus extat, et alioqui brevis-
simus est, inter spuria locum habeat.”’
So far as appears neither the Editor of
St. Chrysostom’s nor of St. Ephrem’s
Works notices the fact that the tract
has been printed or reckoned amongst
the works of the other father. ]

23—25.
Sublimitas

APPENDIX.
NO. X.

Sacerdota-
lis digni-
tatis pro-
funditas.
Esa, 42.
Tins Ips

Sacerdotii
effectus
multiplices.

Corto.
26, 55—A7.
Eph. 2.
ASD:
Calis
Heb. 2 5,
9, 10.

Rom. 11.33.
In Vulg.

non additur
(incompre-
hensibilis.)

Nota pul-
cherrimam
trium in di-
vino mys-
terio 6uo-
volay atque
ecnjunctio-
nem.

Sacerdotii

libertas at-
que subli-

mitas.

460 Quanta sit Sacerdotalis dignitatis altitudo,

est Trinitas, per quam mundus salvatus est, et creatura
illuminata, per quam montes et colles, rupes, et valles illustri
ac veneranda politia, sanctorum inquam monachorum, im-
pleta sunt. Quemadmodum et Propheta Esaias sonora voce
reboat, dicens: ‘‘Quoniam de vertice montium vocem suam
daturi sunt homines in gloriam et laudem Dei altissimi.”
Hae quoque impietas e terra sublata est; hac, et continentia
in terris commoratur. Hac et diabolus, e ccelo decidens
subactus est. lLascivi vasa facti sunt sanctificata, et forni-
catores casti et impolluti. Insipientes veritatis et justitic
duces facti sunt, et improbi boni ac pil. Per hanc et mortis
potentia destructa est, et inferni vires propalam deperditz,
ipsaque Adz maledictio exterminata est atque soluta, et
ceelestis thalamus apertus est et adornatus. Per hance quo-
que humana natura licet humilis atque abjecta, cum virtu-
tibus incorporeis adequatur. Quid dicam? quid eloquar,
aut quid laudibus efferam? LExcedit quippe intellectum et
orationem, omnemque cogitationem, donum altitudinis dig-
nitatis sacerdotalis. Et sicut arbitror, hoc est quod Paulus,
quasi in stuporem mentis actus, innuit, exclamans: “O alti-
tudo divitiarum sapientiz et scientize Dei incomprehensibilis !
quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles
divinee vie ejus?” Altivolans, e terra in coelum nostra postulata
Deo celerrime defert, et Dominum pro servis suis deprecatur.
Intendamus igitur mentem, fratres, clare ac liquido ad mys-
ticam hance formidabilemque narrationem; quoniam absque
venerando et divino sacerdotio remissio peccatorum morta-
libus non conceditur. Attendite, fratres; vos etenim pietatis
amatores estis, qui lumen doctrine Christi contemplamini.
Hee sunt, que prius tenuiter de mysterio sacerdotii comme-
moravi. Palmes vitis, et granum frumenti, necnon sacer-
dotium unionem inter se obtinent. Palmes et frumentum
sunt velut pedissequee, at sacerdotium est natura liberum.
Ceterum ubi tria hec ut simul sint, inter sese concordiam
inierint: tum supra thesauros offert Regi, unumquodque
virtutem propriorum fructuum, in odorem suavitatis. Palmes
precedit sanguinem, similiterque frumentum, purum hune
panem. Sacerdotium vero audacter e terra sursum in ccelum
volitans, ascendit ad Deum, donec ipsum contueatur invisi-
bilem, procidensque ante excelsum thronum, instanter pro

effectus et potestas ineffabilis. 461

servis orat Dominum, lacrymas et gemitus conservorum de- s. ernrem.
portans, proprioque similiter Domino ferventem deprecationem ———_—-
simul et poenitentiam offerens, misericordiam et indulgentiam

a Rege misericorde postulans, ut Spiritus Sanctus pariter de-

scendat, sanctificetque dona in terris proposita; cumque

oblata fuerint tremenda mysteria immortalitate plena, previo
sacerdote orationem pro cunctis faciente, tunc anime acce-

dentes, per illa tremenda mysteria macularum purificationem
accipiunt. Cernitis, pii, quomodo hc duo non operentur

in terra, nisi ceeleste advenerit suffragium, sanctificetque

dona. Vides, homo, illustrem miraculi editionem, cernis
sublime sacrificium, quam facile sordes animarum eluat.
Benedicitur salvator, qui fecit in terris superillustre hoc et Matt, 26.
purgativum donum, in gratia sacerdotes illuminans, ut sicut Joan. 13.
luminaria in mundo luceant. Populus qui ante nos erat, 7) 93°%5.
cornu olei ferens, ad sacerdotium promovebatur: nos vero | Reg. 16.
servi inutiles Dei benedicti, non cornu, non oleum sensibile rae
sumimus ; sed ipse qui est brachium excelsum atque tre- eg
mendum, ex ccelo descendens, suum nobis per impositionem 14
manuum donat Spiritum, qui ignis instar venit super apo- 2 Tim. 1. 6.
stolos. O potestas ineffabilis, que in nobis dignata est habi-

tare per impositionem manuum sacrorum sacerdotum! O Ibid.
quam magnam in se continet profunditatem formidabile et Magna sa-
admirabile sacerdotium! Felicem illum, qui in hac ipsa eae
dignitate administrat pure et irreprehensibiliter. Petrus Joan. 1. 42.
dictus Cephas, qui aliquando captus est ad littus maris, eee
quique a magno testimonium accepit Pastore: quia “ super Mie ae
hane petram edificabo ecclesiam meam,” per sacerdotium, 18.
et claves regni ccelorum accepit, tamquam dignus. Similiter Act. 9. 13,
autem et Paulus, qui prius quidem persecutor erat, hoc quo- Sante
que charismate habitus dignus, celer universum terrarum ): !¥-
peragravit orbem, preedicans annuntiansque resurrectionem
mortuorum. Ceterum revertamur ad justum Abel, qui in Gen. 4. 4.
initio creationis sacerdos factus est, discamusque ex ipso, ena te
quando in principio victimam suam sacrificavit Deo, nonne !*

ignis e coelo descendens, ipsius sacrificium devoravit ? Quando

enim obtulit Deo de primogenitis gregis sui, ut inquit Scrip- Ibia.
tura, respexit ex ccoelo Deus sanctus in oblationem Abel, in
sacrificium vero Cain respicere non bene ei complacuit. Rur- Gen. 8. 4.

RO -, In monte
sus autem et Noe, qui in arca salvatus est, quando cessavit ‘heat

4.62 Sancti qui Sacerdotio digni sunt habiti.

APPENDIX. aqua, seditque supra in monte Ararat, hujus quoque fuit
NO. X,

Gen, 9, > Muneris particeps, obtulitque Deo sacrificium pure in odorem
ee A suavitatis ; unde et cum ipso pactum statuit Redemptor, de
‘non amplius diluvio inducendo super terram, sanctam quoque
illi dans benedictionem crescendi et multiplicandi. Aspicis
mirabile sacerdotii opificium. Vides primum sacerdotem

Abel, in priori creatione, quo pacto ignis ccelitus in terram
deciderit, propter irreprehensibile ejus sacrificium ; cernis

Gen. 9. iterum Noe sacerdotem venerandum, in secunda creatione,
Aaa: 9, quomodo pactum cum ipso statuerit Dominus. Hoc quoque
et Abraham reputatus est dignus, ut illus foret particeps,

Deoque offerret dilectum Isaac, et sacrificaret viscera propria.

Ibi ostendit ei Deus miraculum magnum, Christi scilicet

Planta Sa- generationem in planta Sabec, in ictu incrementum, ipsam-

bec. boat : 45 : 4
Gen. 22. que benedictionem, qua ipse benedixit: ‘In semine enim

G25, 4, tuo,” inquit, “benedicentur tribus omnis terre.” Quin et
Ex. 19. 20; hoc ipso munere divinus Moyses habitus dignus, ascendit
33. 21—23; in montem Sina ad Deum, accepitque legem ; unde quoque
34, 4, 35. : : “” : - Pa

facies ejus glorificata est, ut videretur sole pulchrior. Simi-

literque Aaron hoc eodem dignatus, legatione pro peccatis
Ps. 98.6. populi apud Deum functus est; ‘‘Moyses enim et Aaron

Ps. 105. 23. « : ; Nana = :
Esa. 1.2. in sacerdotibus ejus.”’ Similiter etiam Phinees in hoc vere

(7 aie] et honorabili sacerdotio, mortem a populo ejus prohibuit. He-
703. 3 lias * quoque eodem amictus, in igne exauditus est, sacerdo-
3841. tesque infamiz jugulavit gladius. Discamus igitur fratres,
(mle) quoniam magna est et multa, immensa ac infinita ipsius
Mae. sacerdotii dignitas. Gloria unigenito, gloria et soli bono,
Joan, 13. illud suis prebenti discipulis, per sanctum suum Novum
2 Tim. 1.6. Testamentum, ut et ipsi nobis per impositionem manuum
suarum super dignos, exemplum demonstrent. Cuncti ergo
honoremus, cuncti hac venerandi sacerdotii sublimitate de-
coratos preedicemus beatos; certo scientes, quod si quis ami-
cum Regis amet, hunc ipsum multo amplius a Rege amari.
Sacerdotes. Quocirca amemus sacerdotes Dei, siquidem amici ipsius sunt
Dei amandi ; 5
et hono- boni, et pro nobis ac mundo deprecantur. Honora sacer-
mend. dotes, Christi mandatum exple, quod dicit: “ Quoniam qui
Matt. 10. prophetam cum gaudio recipit in nomine prophets, mer-

41. ae : : :
Mare, 9.41. cedem prophet accipiet.” Quod si de illo qui sacer-

* In Vossius’ translation Isaias is by the Greek, (Op., S. Ephr., tom. iii. p.
mistake put for Elias, as appears from 4. C. Rom. 1746.) ]

Quam periculosum sit sacerdotium indigne suscipere. 463

dos est, ignoras, dignusne an indignus sit tanta subli- s. remem.
° . . aA . DE SACERD.
mitate, tu ob preceptum ipsius Christi, cave despexeris., ;
- z erree ; f imilitudo
Etenim sicut fulgidissimum aurum licet luto contamina- pulcher-
tum, non percipit detrimentum, neque speciosissima mar-*
garita ex contactu quarumdam immundarum specierum :
ad eundem modum, nec sacerdotium ab ullo sordidum red-
ditur, quantumvis etiam indignus sit is, qui illud susce-
pit. Porro si quis ad hane dignitatem velut dignus reper- Bonorum
° . = oF OAD +, sacerdotum
tus sit, in eaque sancte et irreprehensibiliter ambularit, promia.
vitam et coronam immarcessibilem sibi ipse conciliat. Sed Melon
Ae . . : “TL: : sacerdotum
si indigne quis hance ipsam sibi usurpare sit ausus, tene- pene.
bras is sibi exteriores, judiciumque absque misericordia con-
sciscit. En aliud tibi exemplum, 6 homo, ne tu indigne Aliud ex-
ei: +. emplum,
audeas et arroganter obrepere ad sublimitatem sacerdotii, ”?
cum non bene sibi complaceat Deus purus in arroganter
ordinatis. Nosce quid miseri illi sint passi, qui olim resti-
terunt Moysi et Aaron, suaque temeritate ausi sunt impu-
denter atque prefracte sacrificare Deo; nonne ignis e ccelo Lev. 10. 2.
c : Num. 16.
devoravit omnes, adversum quos in profundum supra se sunt | :
ausi? Rursus autem et Maria prophetissa Dei, quod brevi Aliud ex-
uodam sermone Moysi de sacerdotio improperaret, talem ("?"™
q Vv prop ’ Exod. 15.
ei reprehensionis notam statuit altissimus, ut tota leprosa aaa ia
septem diebus ejiceretur extra castra. Idcirco hee nunc, 1, 2, 10.
‘ es ae Ps. 105. 16,
6 fratres, pure administrate, imitantes Moysen et Aaron,
atque Eleazar. Considera pios sacerdotes, quomodo in ipso
sacerdotio sacrilega hostium castra sint ulti: hoe possidens Exod. 17.
; 11—18.
Moyses, manus ad Deum sustulit, vulneravitque Amalec jyqin’s
plaga incurabili. Hoc quoque circumamictus Abraham re- () ,,

ges in fugam vertit. Hoc ornatus Melchisedech, Abrahze ees
eb. /. 9.

benedixit electo, benedictione eximia. Dignatus es, frater,
sublimitate sacerdotii; stude complacere illi qui te elegit, ut

sis ipsi miles puritate et justitia, ac sapientia divina, illus-

trique virginitate. Esto fervens emulator, ut temperans Gen. 39.
Joseph, et castus ut Jesus Nave, hospitalis ut Abraham, isa
paupertatis amator ut Job, indulgens ut David, et mitis ut Jobe. 1. 2.
Moyses. Errantem reducito, claudum confirma, erige ca- vale jet
dentem, succurre infirmis, et alia his similia. Ego vero Nu. }?.3.
obstupesco, fratres dilecti, ad ea que soliti sunt quidam in- Contra in-
sipientum audere, qui impudenter ac temere sese conantur Paiero ude

: = F sh: “dotal
ingerere ad munus sacerdotii assumendum, licet non asciti funus, at-

464 Auctores qui de Sacerdotii dignitate scripserunt.

arrenpix. a gratia Christi, ignorantes miseri, quod ignem et mortem
NO. X
nos. dotium temerarie assumendum: sed neque ceterorum quid-
piam, ex vasis vere venerandi cultis divini, contingendum.
2Reg. 6. Siquidem legisti quid passus sit Oza, eo quod arcam Dei
Pawn tetigisset. Hujus tu semper memineris, dilecte frater, hor-
iy. tt. ribilis verbi Dei excelsi, ore Esaiz prophete pronuntiatt:
“Super quem requiescam ego nisi super mansuetum, humi-
lem, tranquillum, et trementem sermones meos?” Hujus
inquam semper memineris vocis, et attende ut possideas
thesaurum, animum tranquillum, quo possis spiritaliter in
1 Tim.2.8, metropolim Hierusalem supernam ascendere, spiritaliaque
4.” sacrificia Regi Deo inaccessibili offerre, ubi texuntur corone
immarcessibiles et incorruptibiles, ibique tu coram angelis
a Christo coroneris corona immortalitatis, ipseque cum su-
pernis illis choris hymnum victorize decantes sanctissime Tri-
nitati, in secula seculorum. Amen.

SCHOLIA ET VARIZ LECTIONES G. VOSSII TUNGRENSIS 2

De dignitate atque preestantia sacerdotii, si alios adhuc
graves auctores requiris, plura apud 8. Joan. Chrysost. repe-
ries, qui libros sex de Sacerdotio conscripsit, lectu in hac
materia dignissimos: extant inter ejus Opera‘, tom. 5, post
illas 80 ad pop. Antioch. homilias. De quo argumento, idem
Chrysost. licet non ita ex professo, agit Hom. de verbis
Esaize’, ac 14 in 2 Cor.¢ moral. ibi; ‘‘ Nam et si equum,” &e.
et Hom. 10 in primam ad Thessal.! ac tertia in Act.€ et ad
Hebr. ult. in hunc locum": “ TIpsi pervigilant, quasi pro vobis
rationem reddituri,’” &c. De cujus etiam dignitate, vide
apud eundem Chrysost. in Psal. 117: et in Psal. 131*, ubi in
quanto honore ac reverentia sit habenda sacerdotalis digni-
tas, quantamque reprehensionem ac poeenam mereantur in-

b [Op. S. Ephrem. Syr., tom. i. p.4. f [Td. in Epist. i. ad Thessal., Hom.
Rom. 1589. | x. § 1. Op., tom. xi. pp. 494, E—496, D. ]

¢ [S. Chrys. de Sacerdot., Op., tom. g {Id. in Acta Apost., Hom. iii. § 4.
i, p. 362. ed. Ben. | Op., tom. ix. pp. 28, D—31, C.]

‘ [See S. Chrys. Homil. in Oziam h (Id. in Epist. ad Hebr., Hom.
iv. § 4, Op.,tom. vi. pp. 127, B—129, xxxiv. § 1. Op., tom. xii. pp. 811, A—
a

C. and Hom. y. $1. ibid., pp. 131,C— 313, D.]

133, B. See above, vol. ii. pp. 313, 322. ] i [Id. in Psal. exvii. § 1. Op., tom. v.
“ (Id. in Epist. ii, ad Cor., Hom. p. 318, A, B.]

xiv. § 3. Op., tom. x. pp. 541, E—542, k (Id. in Psal. exxxi. § 1. ibid., p-

na 375, C.]

Explicantur mystice, Ararat, et planta Sabec. 465

honorantes illam abunde elucescit omnibus. Quibus istas. ernrem.
non suffecerint videre quoque poterunt aliud insigne Gree- 2 ****?:
corum lumen Gregor. Nazianzenum cognomento Theologum,
presertim in Apologet. Oratione prima!, que incipit in Bil-

liana translatione: ‘Victus sum, idque agnosco et fateor, sub-

ditus sum domino, &c.’ ubi inter alia, quanta sacerdotii digni-

tas, queeque sacerdotis professio sit, docet ; et qualem episco-

pum quoque esse oporteat, &c. Oratio prolixa est, sed digna

que legatur; post quam, ejusdem etiam Carmen vide, tom.

ii. quod incipit™: ‘O qui sacra Deo offertis, non tincta cruore,

&e.” Hujusque dignitatem ac precellentiam inter alios, ab

Ignatio celebratam habes, in Epist. ad Smyrnenses" potissi-

mum, ac ad Heronem®, nec non a Cypriano, lib. i. Epist. 3°.

et lib. 3. Epist. 94. ac Leone Mag. presertim in Epist. 87 ad

Epise. Africanos', &c.

In monte Ararat.] Ita Septuaginta Interp. Gen. 8. Czx-
terum in Vulg. Latin. requievisse arca super montes Armenize
legitur. Verum quomodo hic legamus, parum referre vide-
tur: nam Armenia hebraice dicitur Ararat, quod maledic-
tionem tremoris sonat. Quanquam tamen hic Ephrem
potius Ararat videatur velle esse nomen montis illius, super
quem arca Noe in Armenia requieverat. Quod etiam con-
firmat S. Chrysost. Hom. 26 in Genesim‘.

In planta Sabec.| Ita habent Septuag. Gen. 22+. quod
in Latin. Vulg. non ponitur. Interpretatur autem hoe voca-
bulum 70 caPéx érnppévos, id est, elatus, sive erectus: unde
quidam etiam pro eo dp@os, hoc est, altus vel rectus, edide-
runt, ut per arietem in planta rectum sive erectum cornibus,
ut est Gen. 22. intelligatur ibi typus seu figura crucis Christi,
&e. De quo vide Scholia Greca in allegatum caput Gen. in
nova Rom. editione Greec. veteris Testamenti juxta Septua-
ginta Interp." Caeterum Syrus hic noster Ephrem in Serm.

1 (S. Greg. Naz., Orat. ii. (al. i.)
Op., tom. i. p. 11. See above, vol. i.
pp. 90—92. }

m(S. Greg. Naz. Poemata, lib. ii.
sect. 1. Carm. 13. (al. 12.) Op., p. 824.
See above, vol. i. p. 93.]

n [S. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn., capp.
viii, ix. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. pp. 36,
37. |

° [S. Ignat. adser. Epist. ad Hero-
nem, cap. iii. ibid., p. 109. ]

P [S. Cypr. Epist. ly. ad Cornelium,

HICKES.

Op., p. 79. ed. Ben. ]

a [Id., Epist. Ixy. ad Rogatianum,
Op., p. 112. ]

r (See S. Leo. M. Epist, xii. (al.
Ixxxvii.) ad Episcopos Africanos, capp.
ii—v. col. 658—664; c. x. col. 667. ]

8 [See S. Chrys. in Gen. Hom. xxvi.
§ 4, Op., tom. iv. pp. 248, E. 249, A. ]

t [ical idod Kpids els KaTexdmevos ev
pute oaBex.—Gen. 22. 13. vers. LXX.]

u [ev muté oaBer. Schol. 7d caBix,
iperw twis exdeddxagw" of be SpA.0s,

APPENDIX,
NO. X.

466 Vossii Annotationes in S. Ephrem. de Sacerdotio.

in Abraam et Isaac*, per Td @utov TO ToD caBex, adeow
Epunvever, id est, remissionem seu liberationem, per plantam
Sabec, interpretatur; ut eo denotetur crux Christi, que
mundum a peccatis liberavit, vitamque prebuit. Nam sicut
aries ille cornibus herens in planta Sabec, mystica lberavit
Isaac; sic Agnus Dei manibus in cruce distensis, suspensus-
que, non solum hominem, sed universum mundum a morte
et inferno liberavit. Sic m Abraam et Isaac, ibi Ephrem,
unde plura in hunc locum require. Et hue fere alludit Elias
Cretensis Metropolit. nomen Sabec interpretaus, in suo Com-
ment. in priorem invectivam in Julianum Apostat. in illa
verba Nazianzeni: ‘Abraam, dum vocaretur, ac filio preeter
ztatem donaretur’,’ &c.

In semine tuo benedicentur tribus omnis terre.| Sic le-
gitur hic apud Ephrem. at Gen. 26. est: “ Et benedicentur in
semine tuo omnes gentes terre.” Et Gen. 28. “Et benedicen-
tur in te et semine tuo cuncte tribus terre.” Gen. autem 12.
“In te benedicentur universe cognationes terre.” Et Act. 3.
cap. “ In semine tuo benedicentur omnes familie terre.” In
quibus lectionis varietatem observa et concilia.

K.T.A.. . . Tpos 5E Tovs TuvOavouevovs et Isaac. Op., tom. ii. p. 318, E. F.]
de? droxpiverOa Kal Eye, Ott TH ca- y [See Eliz Cretens. Comment. in
Bek emnpmévos Epunveve.—Scholia in S. Greg. Naz. Orat. iii. (ed. Ben. iv.)
Gen. 22. e. ap. Vet. Test. juxta LXX. § 29. Op., tom. ii. col. 270, D. Par.
Int. p. 15. Rom. 1587. ] 1630. ]

* [See S. Ephr. Serm. in Abraham

APPENDIX.

NG dle

A LETTER FROM THE REVEREND MR. J. M—M—N TO DR. GEORGE HICKES,
CONCERNING SOME PASSAGES IN HIS CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD; WILH DR.
HICKES ANSWER 2.

Decemb. 22, 1713.
REVEREND SIR,

Havine had the happiness to see and with great
pleasure and satisfaction to peruse your judicious and learned
work of The Christian Priesthood, I hope you will not think
it a presumption that I entreat you will be so kind as to give
me satisfaction in what I entertain a doubt about, contained
in that piece. If you will condescend to gratify me herein
it will be resented as a great favour by,

Sir, your humble servant,

J.M

n.>

What I then desire to be informed in is, what reason in-
duces you to interpret in p. 255°, Jews and synagogue of
Satan, in Rev. ii. 9, and ii. 9, of Christians and false hereti-
cal Christians and their Churches. The reason I ask you is,
because the learned Mr. Dodwell, (a master in every argu-
ment he undertakes, by the acknowledgment even of the
learned bishop of Salisbury,) p. 96 of his Occasional Com-
munion‘, says, after quoting these two places, “These can
hardly be the Ebionites, but the unbelieving Jews: the PrXac-
dnuia, Apoc. ii. 9...... and their persecutions, v. 9, 10,
are rather notes of those Jews who did not own the name
of Christ, than of the Christian Ebionites.” And point-blank
elsewhere says, p. 129, “ The Jews themselves (how much zeal

4 [These letters are added from the _ edition. ]
Supplement of 1715. No. 18. ] d [Occasional Communion funda-
> {The Editor has not been able to mentally destructive of the Discipline
ascertain the name of the writer of this of the Primitive Catholic Church, &c.,
letter. | by Henry Dodwell, M.A. London,
© [See above, vol. ii. p. 258, of this 1705. ]

LETTER
TO

HICKES.

APPENDIX.

NO. XI.

468 Observations on Hickes’ interpretation of “ Jews,”

soever they pretended for the law of God) yet are taken by
St. John for the synagogue of Satan.” And for confirma-
tion of his assertion quotes these same places, and then gives
his reason in the same page and the following, p. 1380, why
they must be really, as he says p. 131, Jews by extraction,
or as he varies it again p. 133, were indeed Jews by extrac-
tion. His words are, “There could hardly be any at this
time who could find in their hearts to pretend to be Jews if
they were not, but they who gloried in that name. Nor
were any likely to glory in that name but they who were
Jews by extraction, when the very name exposed them to a
tax to the temple of Peace at Rome, the same which had
formerly been paid to their own temple at Jerusalem, which
tax was exacted with great rigour in this reign of Domitian®,
under whom St. John received his Revelations in his exile at
Patmos, when withal they had net only incensed their Roman
protectors against them by that rebellion, which God was
pleased to make the occasion of inflicting the vengeance
themselves had imprecated upon their own heads, but
thereby exposed themselves defenceless to the old rancours
and resentments of their neighbouring nations, who took
this occasion, as Josephus shews, under pretence (no doubt)
of gratifying the Romans, to wreak the utmost of their own
malice against them. At such a time, I say, as this was,
they could have been no other but Jews by extraction that
could shew themselves so zealously ambitious of so hateful a
name, which had nothing to recommend it but the glory of
their ancestors.” And indeed how can we think that any
Christians at that time of day should be fond of that name,
when they abstained from applying it to themselves at
the time when Tertullian wrote his Apology, which was a
name then so hateful and abhorred that he tells us they did
not communicate with them so much as in name. His own
words chap. 21' are, Negue de consortio nominis cum Ju-
deis agimus. And I think I may say from the Can. Apost.
€ and £08, whenever they commence their date, they were a

est. Sueton. Domitian. cap. xii. ] emiteAécet, KabapeloOw.—Can. Apost.
f [ Tert. Apol., c. 21. Op., p.19, A.] vii. ap. Concilia, tom. i. col. 25, D.
& [el tis erickoros, 2) mpecBurepos, ef tis émiakoros, 7) mpeaBurepos, 7?)

t Rie} an 5 A es
didkovos thy aylay Tov mdéoxa juepav SidKovos, } bAws TOD KaTaAdyou TaY

and “ the synagogue of Satan;” Rev. ii. 9; ii. 9. 469

detestable people; and were in no better grace with the
Christians at the council of Nice, as I gather from these words
in Constantine’s Epistle to the Churches", wherein he in-
forms them that all there assembled consented that the most
sacred solemnity and feast of Easter should by all men, in
all places, be celebrated on the self-same day. I give you
the words of Dr. Hanmer’s translation of the Eccles. Hist. of
Soerat. Scholast'., because I have not the historian’s own*.
“Your minds should in no wise participate, neither in any
thing have fellowship with the wicked ways of lewd persons.
..... We have nothing common with murderers of fathers,
and such as have put their Lord and Master to death.” So
that I think is very probable which Mr. Dodwell says, and
we may conclude with him and assert as he does p. 184.
“Plainly, therefore, they were Jews by extraction,” who are
called by St. John the synagogue of Satan, and said by him
to lie when they pretended to be Jews; and not Christians,
and false heretical Christians and their Churches, as you
make them to be. For as he adds, which has its weight
with what went before to establish his opinion, “The name
of a synagogue supposes them so, when they had now no
other public worship but in their synagogues, after the deso-
lation of their temple. So also do their mentioned blasphe-
mies against the Christians, of which we have so many in-
stances, even in the Scripture History.”

I designed, when I first set pen to paper, to have troubled
you no farther at present; but a few particulars more, which
I also desire to be satisfied in, occurring to my memory, I
will be bold to ask you,

Why you reckon! “ saying prayers at putting on every vest-
ment in robing of the priest, and making the sign of the
cross upon the éapa,” among the instances of the bad addi-

Hanmer, p. 228. London, 1636. ]

kAnpikay, vnoretor peta TOV Lovdaiwy,
}} cvveopravor per’ avTav, 7) SéxoiT0 Tap’
avTav 7% Tis EoptHs Evia, oiov UCuma,
htt To.ovrov, Kabaipetobw. ci 5€ Aaikds,
apopifécOw.—Can. Apost. lxix. Ibid.,
col, 40, C.]

h (Constant. Epist. ap. Socr. Hist.
Eccles., lib. i.c. 9. tom. il. pp. 832—384. ]

i [The ancient Ecclesiastical Histo-
ries of the first six hundred years after
Christ, &c., translated by Meredith

K [viv tuerépay ayxivoray expiv Kad
d1a orovdis Kal 60 evxHs exew TayToTE,
ev pndevds duowdTnTt Td Kabapdy THs
nuetépas Wuxis Kowwveiv, ) Soxev ar-
Opdrwy Ceo. mayKdKov... eed) TODTO
oUTws emavoplovaba mpoojKey, Ss mn-
déy peta Tov Tay TaTpoKTévwy TE Kal
Kupioktovey exelywy €Ovous elvar Kowdr.
—Socrat. Hist. Eeel., ibid., p. 33.]

! [See above, vol. ii. p. 153.]

LETTER
TO

HICKES.

APPENDIX,

NO, XI.

470 On prayers at putting on every vestment, signing

tions which have crept into the ancient liturgies, as you do
p. 145. Pray wherein consists the naughtiness and corrup-
tion of a short prayer, made by the priest at the putting on
of every garment? Do not even Protestant divines advise
persons to spiritualize the actions and occurrences of human
life, even the most common? So in the second volume of
the New-Year’s Gift, under the title of ‘‘ Ejaculations for the
Day™,” “at apparelling, when apparelled, at washing the
hands, the mouth and eyes, at beholding the face in the glass,
at going forth of the house or chamber, as one travels or walks
by the way, when the clock strikes, or we see the hour of
the day, as one ascends an high place, or goes to church,
when on an high hill, at going to read or meditate, when one
hungers or thirsts, &c.,” there are proper ejaculations com-
posed for devout souls on these occasions. Do you condemn
them as bad? If not, why do you count the prayers of the
priest at robing so? If at any time fit to pray when apparel-
ling, sure then when the holy garments are put on in order
to celebrate the tremendous sacrifice, it cannot be reckoned
in itself a bad thing at every vestment to say a pious short
prayer or ejaculation: he that allows the former ejaculations
sure cannot consistently disallow of the latter, I should think,
as such. And if you approve of this custom, which has crept
in to be added to our private daily prayers, I do not see how
you can condemn the other, which has crept in to be added
to the public in the liturgies. And,

As for making the sign of the cross upon the ddpa, if it
be lawful and fit to make it at all, as I believe nobody who
has any veneration for antiquity can deny but it is, what
other time more proper than that wherein the priest blesses,
consecrates and offers them? For if the virtue of what the
priest does with respect to them be in any sort owing to the
cross, as sure it is, (it being the instrument designed by Pro-
vidence for Christ to die on, by whose blood shed there alone
we have access to the Father with them,) by what token can
we better signify that than by this sign? And what more
fitting time? Especially can there present itself any fitter
season for it than when the priest makes the representative
sacrifice of Christ’s body broke and blood shed on the cross ?

m [The New Year’s Gift, vol. ii. pp. 94, sqq. London, 1693. ]

the Cross on the ddpa, and prayers for the Dead. 471

Tf ever it be fitting sure then, this salutary action having its
foundation entirely from what was done on it, and a sign so
well expressing it. Why a bad addition per se to make the
sign of the cross upon the d@pa, when our whole religion is
specified by the Holy Ghost by that name, and when to dedi-
cate a child to God at baptism (as our'Church does) by the
same is not thought to be so? Signs are altogether as sig-
nificant as words: and if we offer an infant to God by this
sign why not the d@pa? I desire and should be glad to
have your reasons why you count these things bad and cor-
rupt additions.

I have now done when I have asked you why in recom-
mending the Education of a Daughter to the Duchess of
Ormond", you (to enhance the value of it) shewing her that
it was free from some Romish superstitions, particularly tell
her to this purpose as I best remember, for I have not the
book by me, she will find there no direction to pray for the
dead. Do you reckon prayers for the dead a corruption in
the Roman Church? By this it appears to me you do. But
I must confess that I took you to be of a quite different opi-
nion, and that your sentiments about them were the same with
Mr. Thorndike’s, viz., “that the reformation of the Church
will never be according to the rule which it ought to follow,
till it cleave to the Catholic Church of Christ in this particu-
lar.’ From this passage, p. 22°, of the Appendix, annexed to
the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, I thought (I say) you
gave in to him, or otherwise you would not have quoted it :
but by what you say to this religious lady it should seem to
be that you are of another mind. Pray be pleased to recon-
cile me this seeming contrariety to yourself; for you do not,
to the best of my remembrance, speak of the author’s not
directing to pray for them after a corrupt way, but of not
directing to pray for them at all, which, I think, fairly sup-
poses you are against praying for them any way.

n [Instructions for the Education of 1707. The dedication to the duchess
a Daughter, by the author of Telema- of Ormond is by Hickes; his words
chus, &c. Done into English, and re- are quoted below, p. 483. J
vised by Dr. George Hickes. London, ° [See above, p. 17, note x. ]

LETTER
TO

HICKES.

APPENDIX.

NO. XI.

472 Hickes’ estimate of Dodwell.

DR. HICKES’ ANSWER.

London, Ormond Street,
April 19th, 1714.

REVEREND SiR,

I am very glad that you read my books of the Christian
Priesthood with so much pleasure and satisfaction, and I
thank you for communicating your observations and doubts
to me.

In the first place you asked me, what induced me tointerpret
Jews and the synagogue (or assembly) of Satan, in Rey. 1. 9
and ili. 9, of Christians and false heretical Christians? And
the reason you give is, because Mr. Dodwell, in the 96th
page of his Occasional Communion, thinks that those places
are not to be understood of Christians, but of Jews by ex-
traction. I never read Mr. Dodwell’s book of Occasional
Communion; but if I had, I see no reason why I should
have gone against the common opinion of learned inter-

. preters, and preferred that of Mr. Dodwell. I knew him

very well, and have as much veneration for his memory,
upon the account of his great piety and learning, as any
man who survives him’. But, Sir, he had two human
infirmities, which are too often incident to great men. One
of them, which was very prejudicial to himself, consisted in
an eagerness to speak all in social discourse, and a sort of
impatience to give others their turns to interpose and reply
in conversation upon subjects of learning with him: but this
infirmity of not giving time to other learned men of speaking
what was requisite for him to hear, did not proceed from
any arrogance of temper or conceited opinion of himself,
but from a fecundity of conceptions, from a vast and long-
continued reading upon all subjects, which made it natu-
ral to him to ease his mind of that multitude of notions,
of which it was big, and with which it always seemed
to be overcharged as with a mighty great weight. The other
was an unhappy love and affection of nostrums, by which I
mean singular notions and opinions, both of his own and of
4 [Dodwell died June 7, A.D. 1711.]

Instances of Dodweill’s singular opinions. 473

ancient Church writers, which were not the doctrines of the
ages in which they lived. This is evident from his notion of
the Jerusalem supremacy, in his book de Nupero Schismate
Anglicano* ; from his discourse upon St. Cyprian de Pauci-
tate Martyrum®’, since fully answered by the learned Bene-
dictine Ruinartus‘, and from his opinion of the Sethites or
posterity of Seth, (whose souls he saith were angels, in a dis-
course upon a sermon printed by Mr. Leslie of marriage
within the communion",) and from others, which might be
named in his book of the natural mortality of the soul*.
Wherefore, Sir, you need no longer be surprised that I did
not follow Mr. Dodwell’s interpretation, had I read it, as
you suppose I did; because I know he was apt to have
singular opinions with his great learning, and because for
that reason I never embraced any of his opinions purely as
his, but as they appeared to me probably or certainly true.
And though the bishop of Sarum, as you observe, did with
great justice acknowledge him to be a master in every argu-
ment he undertook ; yet that same bishop differed as much
from him in his opinions as any man whatsoever, even in
his opinions which had not the least tincture of singularity,
but such as were generally taught and received: but this
opinion of his, for not following of which you ask me to give
you a reason, looks a little like one of his singularities, and
seems to me not sufficiently supported with his arguments ;
which if they were such as made his interpretation more
probable than mine, I would willingly retract it for his.

But, Sir, before I consider them, let me ask you why you
think it so strange that Jews in the Revelations, which is a
prophetical book, should signify Christians, and the syna-
gogues of Satan Christian heretics, or false Christians and

r [See De nupero schismate Angli-
cano Parznesis ad Exteros, ab Henrico
Dodwello, § 9, sqq. pp. 24, sqq. Lond.
1704. ]

8 [Dissertationes Cyprianice. Dis-
sertatio xi. de Paucitate Martyrum,
pp- 221, sqq. Oxon. 1684. ]

* {Acta primorum Martyrum, &c.
Opera et studio Th. Ruinart., &c.
Prefatio Generalis in qua refellitur
Dissertatio undecima Cyprianica Hen-
rici Dodwelli, § ii, 12. pp. xiv. sqq., ed.

HICKES:

2. Amst. 1713. ]

u [The discourse referred to was a
letter which was printed with the first
edition of Mr. Leslie’s sermon, in 8vo.
Lond. 1702. See Leslie’s Theologi-
cal Works, vol. i. p. 737. The Editor
has not seen this letter, but an abstract
of it will be found in Brokesby’s Life
of Dodwell, c. 32. p. 391. Lond. 1715. |

x {An Epistolary Discourse, proving
that the Soul is naturally mortal, by
Henry Dodwell. Lond, 1706. ]

3 P

HICKES’

ANSWER.

APPENDIX.
NO. XI.

Rev. 1. 20.
Rev. 2. 14.

Rev. 2. 20.

Rev. 3. 12;
ASG) 1: ois
5. 8; 7. 3—
35. (6 Mae th
acta ae rfp
17 enDs

474 Jews may mystically signify Christians, Dodwell’s

their Churches? Mr. Dodwell himself, in his discourse of
the One Altar’, owns the Christians to be the mystical Israel,
and Christianity the mystical Judaism; and therefore I
can see no reason why Jews, and the synagogue of Satan,
should not signify Christians, and Christian heretics and
their Churches, in a prophetical book, which is full of simili-
tudes, and figures, and allusions to the Jewish constitution
and the books of the Old Testament, proper to the pro-
phetical style. Why should not Jews allegorically signify
Christians, as well as the seven golden candlesticks be a
symbol of the seven Churches; or Balaam be a prophetical
figure of those who tempted the mystical Israel to eat things
offered to idols, and to commit (spiritual) fornication? So
the woman Jezebel in the prophetical style denotes the same
wicked Christians. And what think you of the other lke
prophetical phrases and expressions, as of the new Jeru-
salem ; a sea of glass; lion of the tribe of Judah ; the smoke
of the incense for the prayers of the saints; of temple,
altar, and censer; of sealing the twelve tribes ; of silence in
-heaven for the space of half an hour; of angels for priests ;
of Michael for Christ; of the trumpets; of Babylon the
great; not to mention others? It is as reasonable, I think,
to understand Jews in the allegorical sensé, as the other
words and expressions for what they are used to signify in
the prophetical style.

These things being premised, I now proceed to consider
the learned Mr. Dodwell’s arguments for the literal against
the mystical sense of Jews and the synagogue of Satan in
Rey. 11. 9 and iii. 9. Those arguments I perceive by you are
two. First, the name of synagogue, which supposes them to
be Jews by extraction. And secondly, their blasphemies.

First, as to the word synagogue, it was commonly used in
the apostolic age for Christian assemblies. St. James ii. 2:
éav yap eicéXOn eis Tiv cuvaywyny tuav. So St. Ignatius,
who was St. John’s disciple, in his Epistle to St. Polycarp’,
TUKVOTEpoy TUVaywyal ywécOwoav. And so Clemens Alex-
andrinus, who wrote in the second century, Stromat., lib. vi.

y [See a Discourse concerning the 1685. ]
one Priesthood and one Altar, by Henry 2 [S. Ionat. Epist. ad Polycarpum,
Dodwell, c. 2. § 3. pp. 31, sqq. Lond. § 4. Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 41.]

arguments from “ synagogue” and “ blasphemy” answered. 475

p- 6332: 4 Tod Adyou Svvapis, phua Kupiov dwteuvov, ar}-
Gera ovpavobev avwber ert thy cuvaywynv THs éxKAyCIas
aduypevn, Sia hotewis Tis tpocexovs Staxovias evyjpye. But
afterwards the Christians in detestation of Jews and Jewish
synagogue, turned cuvaywy1) into cuvvdéis, as learned men
have observed ; though it continued some time longer to be
used, as in the interpolated Epistle of St. Ignatius ad Tralli-
anos»: ywpls mpecButépwv éexxdAnolia éxreKT? OvK EoTW, Ov
cvvdPpoicpa aytov, ov cvvaywy) dclwv. So he paraphrased
the words of the genuine Epistle’, yaplis tovtwy (bishops,
priests, and deacons,) éxxAnoia od KaXettat. So it was used in
the compound rapacuvaywy?’ against the Montanists and
Novatians for the meeting of heretics and schismatics, to
signify that they were not true Christian assemblies but the
synagogues of Satan.

Then as for the argument taken from the word blasphemy,
to prove that by Jews must be understood Jews by extrac-
tion, it is far from being conclusive, because in the Apostles’
time there were so many sorts of Simonian afterwards called
Gnostic heretics, who taught blasphemous doctrines, of whom
you have an account in Irenzeus °, and from him in Eusebius ‘,
and in St. Austin de Heresibus ad Quodvultdeum®, and of
which heretics St. John, 1 Ep. ch. 1. 18, is to be under-
stood in the following words: ‘As you have heard that
Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists.”
Likewise in ch. iv. 1: “ Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits, whether they are of God; for many false
prophets are gone out into the world.” But more especially
there were two blasphemous heresies taught by the Neyouevor
Xp.criavoc", as Justin Martyr calls those Antichristian spirits,
who called themselves Christians, but in truth and reality
were not Christians, but caused both the name of Christ and
Christians to be blasphemed. These two heresies much in-

a [S. Clem. Alex, Strom., lib. vi. § 3.
sub fin, Op., tom. ii. p. 756. ed. Potter. |

> [xwpls TovtTwy exkAnoia exdAeKTH
ovk eat, ov cvvdApoicpa ayiwy, (al.
&yiov) ov cuvaywyh dolwv.—S. Ignat.
Interp. Epist. ad Trallianos,§ 3; ibid.,
p: 61.]

4 [See instances in Suicer’s The-
saurus in voc., tom. ii. col. 590. |

e [See S. Iren. adv. Heres., lib. i.
capp. 23—26. pp. 99—105. |

f [See Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. i’.
c. 13. pp. 61—63, and also lib. iii, eapp.
26—29, and lib. iv. «. 7. pp. 147—
149.]

& [See S. Augustin. de Heres. ad
Quodvultdeum, capp. i.—vi. Op., tom.
viii. col. 5, 6. ]

h [See S. Justin. M. Dialog. cum
Tryph. § 80. Op., p. 178, A.]

HICKES’

ANSWER.

APPENDIX,
NO. XI.

476 That the heretical doctrines of the Docete

fested the Church in St. John’s time. The first were the
Docetie, who denied the humanity of Christ, teaching that
He was a man only in show and appearance, but not in
reality ; and to them it was that St. John alludes 1 Ep. ch.
i. 1—38. And in ch. iv. after the first verse before cited, he
says, “ Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of
Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and
even now already is it in the world.” Was it any wonder
then, that our Lord should say to the apostolical prophet,
“Write these things to the Church in Smyrna, I know the
blasphemy of them who say they are Jews” (that is, in the
prophetical style, Christians) “and are not, but are the syna-
gogue of Satan?” The synagogue of Satan, because it is
plain from the Apostle, that they were Christians who kept
separate meetings from the Church: for after he had said in
the verse cited before, there are many Antichrists, he says,
«They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if
they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued
with us: but they went out, that they might be made mani-
fest that they were not all of us.” I believe you will not
deny but that the assemblies of those Antichrists and false
prophets among Christians were deservedly called by our
Lord the synagogues of Satan, as well as with great pro-
priety of speech. And the whole Epistle of St. Ignatius
(who was contemporary with St. John) to the Smyrneans
wholly relates to these antichristian and blasphemous here-
tics; as where he saysi, éym yap kal peta THY avadotacw
€v capkl avtov olda, kal mictevw dvTa, K.T.rX. In that Epistle
he calls those heretics “wild beasts in men’s shape,” be-
cause they devoured the flock*: tpofuddoow Sé buds aro TOV
Onpiwv tév avOpwtouoppeov. And as he thus warned his
people against them, so he charges them with blasphemy in
these words': ti ydp pe @penrel Tis, Ef Ewe ETraLvet, TOV dé
Kupiov pov Bracdnpe?, pip Oporoydév avtov capKodopor ;
he likewise tells them, that “they abstained from the holy

i (S. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. § 3. * [Id., ibid., § 4. p.

35. ]
Patr. Apost., tom. ii. p. 34.] 1 [Id., ibid., § 5. p. 36.]

were blasphemies shewn from St. Ignatius. 477
Eucharist, and the prayers used at it, because they did not
confess it to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which
suffered for our sins ;” which surely was blasphemy in practice
as well as in principle™: evyapiotias Kal mpocevyys amé-
yovrat, k.T.X. In his Epistle to the Ephesians he calls them"
oixopOopous, “ corrupters of families ;” and says “they shall
not inherit the kingdom of God.” He calls their doctrine?

diaBorov Botavny, the “salad of the devil,” and therefore

their assemblies must needs have been the “synagogues of

Satan ;”’ and says”, that both “those who taught it, and those
who heard it, were to go into everlasting fire.” And because
they called themselves Christians, and in truth were not, he
says in his Epistle to the Magnesians‘, wpézrov obv éotw
fi) MOVvoV KanreicOa ypioTLavods, adAXrG Kat eivat, “It is fitting
for men not only to be called Christians, but to be so in-
deed.” In his Epistle to the Philadelphianst he compares
their doctrines to poisonous plants, of which Jesus Christ had
no care, because they were not the plantation of His Father ;
and in his Epistle to the Trallianss he compares their doc-
trines to “ exotic plants and deadly poison mixed with honey,”
and says they caused “the people of God to be blasphemed”
or evil spoken of '; iva pu d0’ oréyous dhpovas TO Ev Oc@ TAH-
Gos Bracdnyntrar. And that they kept separate meetings,
which were the synagogues of Satan, is plain in all those
Epistles from the charges he gives the flock to stick to their
bishops and presbyters, particularly in his Epistle to the
Philadelphians": gevyete Tov pepicpov, Kal Tas KaKod.ba-
oKanrlas’ brov O€ 6 Touny éotw, exel ws TpoBaTa akoNov-
@etre. Then he adds’, “ For there are many plausible wolves

™ [ evxapiorias Kal mpocevxis amex ov-
Tat, 01a Td uy Gworoyev Thy evXapioTiay
cdpka elyat TOU cwThpos juay “Inood
Xpiorov, Thy brep apuapriay nuay wabov-
cay.—ld., ibid., § 7. p. 36. ]

” [of oixopOdpor BactAclay Ocod ov
KAnpovounoovow.—ld.,Epist.adEphes.,
§ 16; ibid., p. 15.]

° [va ph Tod diaBdrAov Botdvyn tis
evpeby ev tuiv.—ld., ibid., § 10. p. 14. ]

P [6 rowdros puTapds yevomevos, eis
7) wip Td &aBeoTov xwphce:, duolws
kal axovwy avtov.—Id., ibid., § 16. p.
15.]

a {Id. Epist. ad Magnes., § 4; ibid.,
p- 18.]

[améxecbe Tay Kakev BoTaver,
dotwas ov yewpyet Inoods Xpiotbs, dia
Td uh €lvar adToUs puTiay matpds.—Id.,
Epist. ad Phil., § 3; ibid., p. 31.]

[aAAortplas be Botrdyns dréxerOau

. botep Oavdomoy pdpuaroy SiddvTes
pera olvoweArros.—I1d., Epist.ad Trall.,
§ 6; ibid., p. 23. ]

(ids ibid., § 8. p. 23.]

va elicte Epist. ad Phil, § 2;

31.]

VY [moAAol yap AvKot akidmiorot 750-
Vii KaKh aixwadrwrifovor tovs Oeodpd-
fous’ GAM ev TH EvdTyTt buav ovx Ekou-

ow Térov.—lId., ibid. |

ibid., p.

HICKES’

ANSWER.

APPENDIX.

NO. XI.

478 That the doctrines of the Ebionites

which captivate the comers unto God with deadly pleasure,
but they have no place in your unity.” And in his Epistle
to the Trallians*: @uAdtTecGe ody Tots TovovTois’ TodTO dé
éotar tpiv pr pvovovpévols, Kal ovow aywplotots Oeod
‘Inootd Xpictov, cal tod émicKdrov, cal Tov SvataypwaTov
TOV aTOTTOAwY’ 6 évTOS OvaLacTnplov av, KaBapos eat" (6
dé éxtos av, ov KaOapos éativ’) TodT’ ExT, 6 Ywpls eTLTKO-
mov Kal mpecButepiov Kal Svakdvov Tpdacwv TL, OvVTOS ov
Kabapos éotw TH svvELdjoeL.

The other heresy that infested the Church in the time of
St. John, was that of the Ebionites’, who denied the divinity
of Christ, asserting Him to be AuTOv, Kowvdov, Kal ovoy av-
O@pwrrov, “a pure, common man, and only man,” which you
will grant to be a very blasphemous doctrine against our
Saviour. Most of them also held, that He was begotten by
ordinary generation; and all of them agreed in rejecting the
Epistles of St. Paul, whom they called a deserter of the law
and all the Mosaical rites and ceremonies, which they taught
were to be observed as necessary to salvation: and therefore
it is no wonder, that our Saviour speaking of them in the
vision to St.John, said, “I know the blasphemy of them
who say they are Jews” (that is, Christians) “and are not,
but are the synagogue of Satan.” I suppose it was to these
heretics that St. John alluded in his first Epistle, where he
expressly asserts Christ to be God, as in ch. ui. 16, where
he says, “ Hereby perceive we the love of God, in that He
laid down His life for us: and in ch. v. 20, where he says,
“We know that the Son of God is come, and....in His
Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life :”
and also ch. ii. 23, where he says, “ Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father ;” to which we may add
the following words, which are in the Vulgar Latin and
many ancient Greek copies, and which in our Bibles are
printed in a different character, “ But he that acknowledgeth
the Son, hath the Father also.” St. Ignatius also in many
places points at these blasphemous heretics ; asin his Epistle
to the Smyrneans’, where he calls Christ tov Ocov, and has

x [Id., Epist. ad. Trall.,§ 7; ibid., given in substance in the following
23

23. passage. |
¥ [See Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. z [S. Ignat., Epist. ad Smyrn., § 1.
c. 27. tom. i. p. 121. His account is Patr. Apost., tom, ii. p. 33.]

were also blasphemies, from Eusebius and St. Ignatius. 479

this expression*, dwped tod Ocod. In his Epistle to Polycarp
he calls the deacons” Saxdvovs rob Ocod: in his Epistle to
the Ephesians‘, év Oecd judv “Incod Xpist@, Kai adtos* 7
év jpiv Ocds udv, and® AaBovtes Ocod yvdouw, 6 éotiv
*Inoods Xpiords: and in his Epistle to the Romans‘, cara
mlotw Kal ayarnv Tod Ocod Huo. He also alludes to them
in his Epistle to the Magnesians®, where he warns his flock
not to live cata Iovdaicpnov, which he tells them was to
deny the Gospel and Jesus Christ His eternal Word ; for, as
Eusebius observes" Eccles. Hist., lib. iii. c. 22, they did not
acknowledge the pre-existence of Christ, nor that He was
Ocds Adyos Kal copia, “God the Word.” St. Ignatius in
the same Epistle says', “It is absurd to own Jesus Christ
and to judaize :” and in his Epistle to the Philadelphians he
tells them* that “if any body would teach them Judaism,
they should not hear him, because it was better to be taught
Christianity by a Jew, than Judaism by a Christian ; but if
either Jews or Christians spoke not aright of Christ, they
were in his account but as statues and sepulchres of the
dead: and so proceeds to exhort them not to dispute with
those judaizing heretics, but to do all things cata ypiotopa-
@iav, according to the doctrine of Christ.” Wherefore, Sir,
since the Ebionites held such blasphemous doctrines, as in
truth and reality were to deny Jesus Christ and the Gospel,
our blessed Lord had great reason to bid the apostolical

prophet say to the bishop of

a [Id., ibid., § 7. p. 36.]

b [S. Polyearpi Epist. ad Philip.,
§ 5; ibid., p. 188, is the passage re-
ferred to. See above, vol. ii. p. 36,
note s. |

¢ [The words év 066 judy *Incod
Xpior@, occur not in St. Ignatius’ Epi-
stle to the Ephesians, but in that to
St. Polyearp, § 8. Patr. Apost., ibid.,
p- 42.)

4 (Id., Epist. ad Ephes., § 15. p.15.]

€ [Id., ibid., § 17. p. 15.]

f [eard& aydmrny “Inood Xpiotod Tov
cod juav.—l1d., Epist. ad Rom. ; init.
p- 26.

Kata wloTw Kal aydmrny ’Inood Xpic-
TOU, TOU Ocod Kal cwripos juav.—ld.,
Interp. Epist. ad Rom. ; init. p. 69. ]

& [et yap péexpt viv Kara vodpoy
*Tovdaioudy (f. “lovdaicpod, vel véduov
est glossema) C@puev, juordoyodueyv xdpiv
wh eiAnpeva’... Ort eis Oeds Cot 6

Smyrna, Rev. 1. 9, “I know

gavepdoas Eavtdy 51a “Incod Xpiorov
Tod viod avTov, bs eat avTov Adyos
atdios.—Id., Epist.ad Magn., § 8; ibid.,
yA]

h [ov why... ovTor mpotmapxet ad-
Tov, @edbv Adyov byTa Ka coplay duo-
Aoyoorres, K.7.A.—Euseb. Hist. Eccl.,
lib. iii. cap. 27. tom. i. p. 121.]

1 [aromdy eori Xptorby “Inoody Ka-
Aciv, Kad "lovdai¢ew.—S. Ignat. Epist.
ad Magn., § 10; ibid., p. 20.]

k [édy 8€ Tis “lovdaicudy Epunvedn
buiv, pi) akovere avtod’ %mewov ydp eo-
TW Tapa avopos mepirouny ExovtTos Xpt-
oTiaviopov akovey, 7) Tapa akpoBiarov
"lovdaicudy’ eay be aupdrepor mepl *In-
cod Xpicrov pt AaAG@oww, ovTOL epol
orjAat eiow Kal Tdpor veKpOv... Ta-
parar® dé tuas undev Kar’ epibelay mpdo-
oew, GAAG Kara xpioTouablay.—Id.,

Epist. ad Phil., §§ 6,8; ibid.,pp. 31,32. ]

HICKES’

ANSWER.

480 The meaning of the word blasphemy.

arrenvtx, the blasphemy,” &c., and in like manner to say to the bishop
EE of Philadelphia (where these heretics also infested the Church)
Rev. i. 9, “ Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of
Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie: I will
make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know

that I have loved thee.”

But, Sir, to conclude my reply, to dlaspheme (you know)
signifies to speak evil against another, or to speak or assert
such things as are reproachful or injurious to any person,
or what diminishes or derogates from the fame, worth, hon-
our or dignity of any person. So St. Paul was said to

Acts 23. 8, blaspheme the high-priest, because he called him “ whited
i Kings wall ;” and so Naboth was accused of blaspheming God
eG. and the king; and our Saviour was several times charged
a vate: with blasphemy by the Jews, for saying He was the Son
Acts 36,11, of God, and by consequence God. So St. Paul says, that
he compelled the Christians to blaspheme, that is, to deny
Christ, and curse Him as an impostor. And as we read
in the Acts of St. Polycarp, when the proconsul bid him
reproach Christ, the holy martyr answered!, “I have served
Him eighty-six years, and He never did me any wrong,
and how then can I blaspheme my King, who is my Sa-
viour?” And Justin Martyr in one of his Apologies tells
us™, that Barchochebas the Jew commanded the Christians to
be tormented, who would not deny and blaspheme Christ.
So those Christians who led ill lives or taught false opinions,
are said to cause the name of God and Christ to be blas-
phemed, as the Apostle told the Christian Jews, Rom. i. 24,
where he says, “ For the name of God is blasphemed among
the Gentiles through you;” that is, through you who make
your boast of the law and rest in it. So St. Paul, 1 Tim. vi.
1, says, “ Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count
their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of
God and His doctrine be not blasphemed:” and so in his
Tit. 2.4, Epistle to Titus, he commands the younger wives to be
eB exhorted “to be sober, chaste, obedient to their own hus-

[oySonndyra, kal et érn exw Sov- m [BapxoxéBas 6 THs “lovdalwy ao-
Acbwy ait, kad oddév we Hdiknoev’ Kal ordocews apxnyerns, Xpiotiavods udvous
TOS Sivapiau Braopnuroa Tov BaciAéa eis Timmplas Seiwds, ef wh apvotvTo I7n-
Mou, Toy odoayrd we;—Eccles. Smyrn. cody Toy Xpiordy kal BAaopnmoier, exé-

Epist. de Martyr. S. Polye., § 9. ap. Aevev amayeorOa.—sS. Justin. M. Apol.i.
Patr. Apost., tom, ii. p. 198.] § 31. Op., p. 62, C.]

Hickes’ view of the prayers at putting on the vestments ; 481

bands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” And so
St. Paul tells Timothy that he had delivered Hymeneus
and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith, unto
Satan, “that they might learn not to blaspheme.” Hence
damnable doctrines and heresies came to be called blas-
phemy in the Christian writers, and such as taught them
were said to blaspheme; and therefore no conclusive argu-
ment can be taken from the word blasphemy in the fore-
cited text, to prove that by Jews were meant Jews by ex-
traction, since so many Christian heretics in the time of
St. John, and in particular the Docetz and Ebionites, held
such doctrines as were blasphemy and a reproach to God
and Christ.

You also ask me, why I reckon saying of prayers at
putting on every vestment in robing of the priest, and
making the sign of the cross upon the dépa, among the
bad additions which have crept into ancient liturgies, as I
do, p. 145°. In answer to the former, I desire you, Sir, to
consider, that there are many things which are simply good
and lawful in themselves, but are inconvenient; and as far
as they are inconvenient and inexpedient, so far they are
to be condemned, and esteemed bad. Such I accounted
saying of prayers at putting on every one of the priest’s
vestments in the Greek Church, because I thought the ob-
servation of that rite savoured too much of formality and
superstition, of which in latter ages that Church hath been
very guilty. For there may be excess as well as defect in
devotion, and too many as well as too few observances, and
even too many as well as too few prayers: and therefore
to speak to you after your own manner, supposing we were
not to wear our gowns and cassocks but in the church,
would you be for prescribing our priests so many several
forms of short prayers at putting on our cassocks, girdles,
gowns, surplices, and distinguishing habits of our degrees?
and would you not think that man superstitious, who would
bind himself to say a several prayer at the putting on of
his shirt, doublet, breeches, stockings, shoes, night-gown
or other gown, hat, gloves, band or cravat, and at looking

n [This reference is to the third edition, the passage is in vol. ii. p. 153 of the

present edition. }
HICKES, 3 Q

HICKES’
ANSWER.

te Rims le
20.

APPENDIX,

NO. XI.

482 of frequent short prayers ; of making the sign

on his face in the glass while he dressed himself, and at
washing his hands, mouth and eyes, before he went to his
solemn morning prayer, and then at going out of his cham-
ber? And what would you think of a man, whose common
practice was, instead of saying grace once, to say grace at
laying the table-cloth, at setting on the bread and salt,
and so severally at every dish that was served at his table?
For my part, I should condemn that practice as superstitious
and burdensome, and looking too like the opus operatum,
though I could not deny but considered simply in itself
it was lawful, though very inconvenient, and by consequence
to be disapproved. Or lastly, what would you think of a
man that should be so superstitious as to say a prayer at
the paring of his nails, or at every time he trimmed or
combed his head? And because you instance in praying
when the clock strikes, would you encourage a man to say
an ejaculatory prayer at every time he heard the clock strike
twelve, in walking from the Tower to Westminster Abbey,
as I have often heard it, walking between them, strike in
churches and private houses about ten times? And for my
part, I should not have given directions for that sort of
practice, which are in the second volume of the New-Year’s
Gift °, for the reasons I have already mentioned. And I pray
you to consider, whether a man who obliged himself to say
so many ejaculatory prayers at rising, and dressing, and
going out of his chamber, and afterwards out of his house,
and at getting on horse-back in order to a journey, and
at every time he heard the clock strike by the way, or going
up a high mountain, or passing over a river, and at his
meals and refreshments, as afore-mentioned; I say consider
whether such a man might not be justly charged with super-
stition; and by consequence, though the saying so many
prayers simply considered may be said to be good in itself,
yet I think as a superstitious usage it is to be condemned.
As for making the sign of the cross upon the dapa,
I freely confess that I have given you just occasion for
the observation you have made upon that expression. For
instead of d5dépa I should have put in “ bread,” and instead
of “making” I should have said “impressing,” and then the
* [See above, p. 470. ]

of the Cross, and of praying for the Dead. 483

expression would have been, “impressing the sign of the
cross upon the bread ;” or as I intend to alter it, “ impressing
so many signs of the cross upon the bread, as there are to be
pieces for distribution among the communicants?.” It was
that custom of the Greek priests *, which I had in my eye,
which occasioned me to say, making the sign of the cross
upon and not over the dépa: for as I utterly dislike the use
of any material crosses made of wood, stone, or metal, &c.,
in religious worship, or any permanent signs of the cross of
Christ; such as are embossed, inlaid, impressed, or painted
upon or in any matter: so I disapprove the impressing of
crosses upon the eucharistical bread, as being very supersti-
tious, and not to be found in ancient practice. But as for
the transient, aerial, and vanishing signs of the cross, which
in the pure ancient times were used in religious worship ;
I very much approve of the use of them, as we do in Baptism,
and as I would have done in anointing the sick with oil,
and persons confirmed with chrism, were we so happy as
to have those primitive religious rites and usages restored.

' In answer to your last question, I do assure you, that
I am heartily of Mr. Thorndike’s opinion, and as truly
zealous as you may imagine he was, for praying for the dead
who depart in the faith and fear of God, and in the peace of
the Church; and if you consult my dedication of the “Advice
for the Education of a Daughter,” you will find from the
whole passage that my observing there was no direction
in the book to pray for the dead, cannot with any ingenuity
be understood but for praying for the dead in the popish
sense, according to the practice of the Church of Rome.

The whole passage is as follows: “ He no where directs
them to pray before images, or to call upon saints or angels,
or to pray for the dead, or to get indulgences, or wear relics,
or use beads.” I believe very few readers will think that in
this passage by “ praying for the dead” I meant praying or
offering in the primitive sense, and according to the prac-
tice of the ancient Church, as we read in Tertullian", and

P [These alterations were made in 4 [See Goar’s Euchologium, pp. 60,
the supplement of 1715, and have _ 61.] 7”
been adopted in this edition. See vol. ® (See Tertull. de Corona, c. iii, Op.,

ii. p. 153. ] p. 102, A.J

HICKES’

ANSWER. —

APPENDIX,
NO, XI.

484 Hickes’ testimony respecting praying for the Dead.

St. Cyprian’, and Eusebius‘, who tells us they prayed for

Constantine the Great after his death. Therefore, Sir, I
assure you I have not changed my mind as to praying
for the dead, but have lately given a public testimony of
my opinion for it, in a preface to a book entitled", “Some
Primitive Doctrines restored, or the Intermediate or Middle
State,” &c.

Before I conclude I cannot but tell you that I am
glad my labours are so acceptable to you and that most
worthy gentleman Mr.W ; and that I think myself very
much obliged to you for reading my books with such a
critical and discerning eye. I thank you heartily for it,
and wish all my readers would do me the same favour
and honour; and had I the conversation of more such
learned and ingenious gentlemen as you and Mr. W—,
it would be a mighty benefit and satisfaction to,

Your most affectionate

and faithful Servant,

GEORGE HICKES.

* [See S. Cypr. Epist. xxxiv. Op.,
p- 47; Epist. xxxvii. p.50; Epist.lxvi.
p. 114]

t [See Euseb. de Vita Constant., lib.
iv. c. 71. Hist. Ececl., tom. i. p. 668. ]

« [The title of the work referred to
is, ‘Some Primitive Doctrines revived :
or The Intermediate or Middle State
of departed Souls (as to happiness or
misery) before the day of Judgement,
plainly proved from the Holy Scrip-

tures and concurrent testimony of the
Fathers of the Church. To which is
prefixed the Judgement of the Reve-
rend Dr. George Hickes concerning
this book, and the subject thereof. 8vo.
London, 1713.’’ The work was pub-
lished anonymously, but in a second
edition in folio with some additions in
1721 the name of the author the Hon.
Archibald Campbell is given. ]

OXFORD:
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

BOOKS PUBLISHED
BY JOHN HENRY PARKER,

OXFORD; ann 377, STRAND, LONDON.

By the Rev. T. W. ALLIES, M.A.,
Rector of Launton, Oxon.

The Church of England Cleared from the
Charge of Schism,

By the Decrees of the Seven Kcumenical Councils, and the Tradition of the Fathers.
Second edition, much enlarged, with a notice in answer to Mr. Thompson’s book on
the Episcopate. 8vo. 12s.
N.B. This edition is so much enlarged as to amount to a new work.

By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.

SERMONS

DURING THE SEASON FROM ADVENT TO WHITSUNTIDE. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

By the Rev. FREDERICK W. MANT.

Reginald Vere, a Tale of the Civil Wars, in Verse.

12mo. 6s.

By JOHN DAVID MACBRIDH, D.C.L.,
Principal of Magdalen Hall.

Lectures Explanatory of the Diatessaron.

Third edition, much enlarged, 8vo. price 15s.

Also, Second Edition, 8vo. 2s. 6d.

Diatessaron :
OUR Date hey Orn Che RA ESiis

In the words of the authorized version, with various readings from the most esteemed
Paraphrases, and Dr, BLayNeEy’s Marginal References.

By the Rev. CHARLES MARRIOTT, M.A.
Analecta Christiana

In usum tironum. Part 2, completing the work. 8vo. 5s.

By JOHN LOCKHART ROSS, M.A,,
Late Vice-Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.

Reciprocal Obligations of the Church and the

Civil Power.

Inscribed (by permission) to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. for the University
of Oxford. 8vo. 12s.

By the Rev. EDWARD BURTON, D.D.

The Greek Testament, with English Notes.

SECOND EDITION, REVISED. 8vo. 14s.

Aveust, 1848.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER,

Library of the sAHFathers.

VOLUMES PUBLISHED.

S AUGUSTINE:

CONFESSIONS. 8vo. Third Edition, price 9s.; to Subscribers 7s.
HOMILIES on the NEW TESTAMENT. Two vols. 8vo. Price 28s. ;
to Subscribers 20s.
SHORT TREATISES. Price 16s. ; to Subscribers 12s.
ON THE PSALMS. Vol. I. Price 10s. 6d. ; to Subscribers 8s.
Vol. II. in the Press.

iS. ALBANAS.IUS:

SELECT TREATISES AGAINST THE ARIANS. Two vols. 8vo. Price 19s. 6d. ;
to Subscribers 15s.
HISTORICAL TRACTS. Price 10s. 6d. ; to Subscribers 8s.

Sut hRYS OS TOM.

HOMILIES ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES. Vols. 1 to 6, 8vo. Price 31. 9s. 6d.; to
Subscribers 21. 12s. 6d. Vol. VII, on 2 Corinthians, és in the press.

THE STATUES. Price 12s; to Subscribers 9s.

ST. MATTHEW. Vols. 1 and 2. Price 11. 4s. ; to Subscribers 18s.

ST. JOHN. In the Press.

S. CYPRIAN’S WORKS. Two vols. 8vo. Price 11. 2s.6d.; to Subscribers 17s.

S. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
CATECHETICAL LECTURES. Third Edition. Price 10s. 6d.; to Subscribers 8s.

S. GREGORY THE GREAT.

HOMILIES ON THE BOOK OF JOB. Vols. 1 and 2, Price 30s. ; to Subscribers 22s.

—_——_—_—_—_—_——_ Vol. III. Part 1. Price 10s. 6d.;
to Subscribers 8s. Vol. III. Part 2. completing the Work, in the press.

TERTUPLEAN'’S WORKS. Voli Le rice 15s. ; to Subscribers 11s.

Persons sending their names as Subscribers to this Work are entitled to the Volumes
as they are published at one fourth less than the Publication price, payment to be
made on the delivery of the books, but no annual subscription required. Twelve months’
notice is expected previous to the withdrawal of a name,

Persons desirous of becoming Subscribers are requested to transmit their names and
the name of their Bookseller to the Publisher, and the Volumes will be forwarded as
soon as published.

It is feared that some Subscribers, either through change of residence or other causes,
may not have received the whole of their volumes regularly; should such be the case, it
is requested that the Publisher may be informed, in order that the volumes required to
complete the set may be forwarded.

*»* few complete sets may now be had by new Subscribers at the original
Subscription prices.

SELECT WORKS OF S. EPHREM THE SYRIAN,
Translated out of the Original Syriac. With Notes and Inp1ces.
8vo. 14s. ; to Subscribers to the Library of the Fathers, 10s. 6d.

OXFORD; anp 377, STRAND, LONDON.

BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM ECCLESLZ CATHOLICA.
S. AUGUSTINI CONFESSIONES. 8vo. Price 9s.; to Subscribers 7s.

8 Vols. 8vo. Price 21. 2s.; to Subscribers 11. 11s. 6d.
S. JOANNIS CHRYSOSTOMI HOMILIZ IN MATTHEUM.
Edidit F. FIELD, A.M., Coll. $.S. Trin. apud Cant. nuper Socius.

CHRYSOSTOMI HOMILIZ# in S. PAULI Epistolam primam ad
Corinthios. Price 14s.; to Subscribers 10s. 64d.

S. CHRYSOSTOMI HOMILIA IN D. PAULI EPIST. II. AD
CORINTHIOS. Price 10s. 6d. ; to Subscribers 8s.

The remainder of the Text of S. Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Paul’s Epistles will follow
in due course; Collations having been obtained for the whole at considerable expense.

A COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR GOSPELS,
COLLECTED OUT OF THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS.
TRANSLATED FROM THE CATENA AUREA OF THOMAS AQUINAS.

Four Volumes in Eight Parts, 3/. 17s.

DEVOTIONAL WORKS,
ADAPTED TO THE USE OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,
FROM THE WORKS OF FOREIGN DIVINES,
EpitEep By THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.

A Guide for Passing Lent Holily.
By Avrillon. Second Edition. With Frontispiece. 7s.

Paradise for the Christian Soul.
By Horst. 2 vols. 6s. 6d.

The Life of Jesus Christ, in Glory.

Daily Meditations from Easter Day to the Wednesday after Trinity Sunday.
By Nouet. 8s.

The Spiritual Combat, and the Supplement: with the Path of

Paradise ; or, The Peace of the Soul.
By Scupoli. (From the Italian.) With Frontispiece. 3s. 6d.

The Year of Affections.

Or Sentiments on the Love of God, drawn from the Canticles, for every day
in the year. By Avrillon. 6s. 6d.

The Foundations of the Spiritual Life.
(A Commentary on Thomas 4 Kempis.) By Surin. 4s. 6d.

A Guide for Passing Advent Holily.
By Avrillon, With Frontispiece. 6s.

SOME MEDITATIONS AND PRAYERS

Selected from the ‘‘Via Vite Aiternz,” to illustrate and explain the Pictures by
Boerius a Botswerr. ‘Translated from the Latin, and adapted to the use of the
English Church. By the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D. With the curious
allegorical engravings. 8vo. 10s, 6d.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER,

A LUtbrarp of Anglo-Catholic Theologn.

Volumes published 1841 to 1846.

BISHOP ANDREWES’ SERMONS, 5 vols. 22 16s.
BISHOP ANDREWES’ Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, &c. 10s.
BISHOP BEVERIDGE’S WORKS. Vol. I.to VIII. 41. 8s.
ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL’S WORKS. Svols. 31. 3s.
BISHOP BULL’S HARMONY OF THE APOSTLES

ST. PAUL AND ST. JAMES ON JUSTIFICATION. 2vols. 18s.
BLS HOP CO Si NZS) WORKS: JVols.l.jand [1,12 as.
BISHOP GUNNING onthe Paschal, or Lent Fast. 9s.
HAMMOND’S PRACTICAL CATECHISM. 10s. 6d.
HICKES’S TWO TREATISES, On the Christian Priesthood,

and On the Dignity of the Episcopal Order. Vol. I. 9s.
JOHN JOHNS ONS) WORK S:-yVol.d.. 2s:
ARCH BISHOP LAUDS WORKS: Voljd: Gs.
L’ESTRANGE’S ALLIANCE OF DIVINE OFFICES. 12s.
MARSHALL’S Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church. 6s.
BISHOP NICHOLSON ON THE CATECHISM. 6s.
BISHOP OVERALL’S CONVOCATION BOOK. 8vo. 8s.
THORNDIKE’S WORKS. Vols. I. and II., 4 Parts. 21.

Volumes for 1847.

BAS OP] Ba) Ven Re DiG Bass WW OUR KS) aVioliexe) 1 Ossi6d,
CRAKANTHORP, DEFENSIO ECCLESIZ ANGLICANE. 14s
EC KRSUS) eh WiOr eee Rib ATI cS BiG-0) Vol wll s 19s

JOHN JOHNSON’S WORKS. Vol. Il. 9s.

BISHOP WILSON’S WORKS. Vol.II. 10s. 6d.

$$ K$ $$ Vo]. TIT. «10. 6.

*,* Vol. I. containing Life, &c. will be published last.

Should any Subscriber not have received all the Volumes due for 1847, he is requested
to write to the Publisher.

Works in course of publication.

ARCHBISHOP LAUD’S WORKS. Vol. II. Conference with Fisher.

BISHOP COSIN’S WORKS. Vol. III. A Scholastical History of the
Canon of Holy Scripture.

BISHOP BEVERIDGE’S WORKS. Vol. X. Thesaur. Theol. Vol. XI.
Codex Canonum Eccl. Prim. Vindicatus, &c.

BASHCOP Was SONGS) a WeOlRuKo Ss iViol, Ve

BISHOP BULL. Defensio Fidei Nicene. Translation.

BISHOP PEARSON. Vindicie Ignatian.

HAMMOND. Of Schism, &c.

THORNDIKE’S WORKS. Vol. III. Ofthe Covenant of Grace.

HICKES’S TWO TREATISES. Vol. III. Appendices.

JOHN JOHNSON’S WORKS. Vol. III. A Collection of Ecclesiastical
Laws, Canons, &c.

FRANK’S SERMONS,

Subscribers paying two guineas annually in advance are entitled to all the pub-
lications without further payment. It is proposed to publish six volumes (of 400
pages on the average) for each year.

Persons wishing to become Subscribers are requested to send their names, and
those of their booksellers, to the Secretary and Treasurer, CoarLEs CRAWLEY, Esq.,
under cover, to the Publisher, Mr. Parker, Bookseller, Oxford.

*,* New Subscribers can select volumes to complete sets.

THE VALIDITY OF ENGLISH ORDINATIONS.
By P. F. Le CourAyer. 4 new Edition; 8vo., 10s. 6d.; fo Subscribers 7s

OXFORD; anv 377, STRAND, LONDON.

ACADEMICAL AND OCCASIONAL SERMONS, with a
Preface on the Present Position of the English Church. By the Rey.
JOHN KEBLE, M.A. Second edition, 8vo. 12s.

SERMONS and ESSAYS on the APOSTOLICAL AGRE.
By the Rey. A. PENRHYN STANLEY, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
University College. 8vo. 12s.

SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE the UNIVERSITY of
OXFORD. By EDWARD HENRY MANNING, M.A., Archdeacon of
Chichester, and late Fellow of Merton College. Second Edition. 8vo. 6s.

SERMONS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS AND
OTHERS. By the Rev. T. W. ALLIES, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE the UNIVERSITY of
OXFORD, and in OTHER PLACES, By the Rev. C. MARRIOTT, M.A.
12mo. 6s.

SERMONS ON THE FESTIVALS. By the Rev. J.
ARMSTRONG, M.A. 12mo. 6s.

The TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT OF SIN, and other
SERMONS. By the Rev. C. H. MONSELL, M.A. 12mo. 6s.

PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By the Rev. W. JACOBSON,
M.A., Vice-Principal of Magdalen Hall. Second Edition. 12mo. 6s.

SERMONS, chiefly Expository, by R. E. TYRWHITT, M.A.
With Notes. In Two Volumes 8vo. £1. 4s.

A COURSE OF SERMONS on SOLEMN SUBJECTS chiefly

bearing on Repentance and Amendment of Life, preached in St. Saviour’s
Church, Leeds. Second edition, 8vo. 7s. 6d.

FOUR SERMONS preached at the General Ordinations of the
Lord Bishop of Oxford:
December, 1845. December, 1846,
Trinity, 1846. Trinity, 1847.
By the Ven. C. G. CLERKE, Archdeacon of Oxford,
The Rey. R. C. TRENCH, Rector of Itchenstoke,
The Rev. JAMES RANDALL, Rector of Binfield,
The Rev. E. M. GOULBURN, Vicar of Holywell,
Chaplains to the Lord Bishop.

LECTURES ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF
THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. By the late EDWARD BURTON,
D.D, Third Edition, complete in one volume 8yvo. lds.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER,

WORKS BY THE REV. WILLIAM SEWELL, B.D.,

FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

A JOURNAL OF A RESIDENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF ST.
COLUMBA, IN IRELAND. Witha Preface. Second Edit. 12mo. 4s

THE DANGER AND SAFEGUARD OF THE YOUNG IN THE
PRESENT STATE OF CONTROVERSY. A Sermon preached be-
fore the University of Oxford. 8vo. Ils.

Also by the same Author.
CHRISTIAN POLITICS. 12mo. 6s.
CHRISTIAN MORALS. 12mo. Third edition. 5s.

THE FIRST VOYAGE OF RODOLPH THE VOYAGER. 12mo. 4s. 6d.
THE SECOND VOYAGE. 12mo. 6s.

A SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF BUTLER’S ANALOGY,
On the plan of Dr. Mill’s Analysis of Pearson on the Creed,

By JOHN WILKINSON, B.A.,

Of Merton College, Oxford, and Curate of Exmouth,
in the Diocese of Exeter. 8vo. ds.

WORKS OF THE LATE ARCHBISHOP LAURENCE.

Third Edition, 8vo. 10s. 6d.
AN ATTEMPT TO ILLUSTRATE THOSE ARTICLES
Of the Church of England which the Calvinists improperly consider as CAL-
VINISTICAL; in Eight Sermons, preached before the University of Oxford
in the year 1804, at the Lecture founded by J. Bampton, M.A,

8vo. 7s. 6d.

LIBRI ENOCH PROPHETA VERSIO ATHIOPICA,

Que seculi sub fine novissimi ex Abyssinia Britanniam advecta vix tandem
litterato orbi innotuit.

8vo. Third Edition, 7s. 6d.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH THE PROPHET,
Now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library.

8vo. 9s,

PRIMI EZR LIBRI,
Qui apud Vulgatum appellatur quintus, versio Ethiopica; nunc primum in me-
dium prolata et Latine Angliceque reddita.

8vo. 6s, 6d.

ASCENSIO ISAIZ VATIS,
Opusculum pseudepigraphum, multis abhine seculis, ut videtur, deperditum,

nunc autem apud Authiopas compertum, et cum Versione Latina Anglicana-
que publici juris factum,

Part I. Second Edition, Price 5s. And Part II. Price 5s.

Tue DocrrineE oF THE CHURCH oF ENGLAND UPON THE EFFICACY OF
BAPTISM, Vindicated from Misrepresentation.

OXFORD; anv 377, STRAND, LONDON.

DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY, in which are considered its

Structure, Use, and Inspiration. By the Rey. J. DAVISON, B.D., late Fellow of
Oriel College, Oxford. Fourth Edition, 8vo. 12s.

REMARKS ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
By the same Author. 8vo. cloth, 2s. 6d.

REMAINS AND OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS.

By the same Author. 8vo. lds.

THE ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF G. BULL, D.D.,

sometime Lord Bishop of St. David’s. A new Edition, 8vo. 10s. 6d.

THE DEFINITIONS OF FAITH, and Canons of Discipline of

the Six GEcumenical Councils, with the remaining Canons of the Code of the Uni-
versal Church. Translated, with Notes. To which are added, THE APOSTOLICAL
CANONS. By the late W. A. HAMMOND, M.A. 8vo. 7s. 6d.

THE GREEK TEXTS OF THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS.
With the English Translation, and Notes, by JOHN JOHNSON, M.A. 8vo. 2s.

PRALECTIONES ACADEMICA OXONIT HABITA, a J. KEBLE,

A.M., Poetic Publico Prelectore. 2 vols. 8vo. 21s.

LETTERS FROM A TUTOR TO HIS PUPILS. By W. JONES,
of Nayland. A New Edition, edited by the Rev. E. COLERIDGE, M.A., Eton
College. 18mo, 2s. 6d.; morocco, 5s.

mae PASTOR IN. HIS CLOSET;

Or, a Help to the Devotions of the Clergy. By the Rev. JOHN ARMSTRONG,
Vicar of Tidenham, Author of “Sermons on the Festivals.” 18mo. 2s. 6d.

PRAYERS AND OTHER DEVOTIONS FOR PENITENTS,
Compiled by the Rev. J. LEY, B.D., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 18mo. Is. 6d.

THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and
Holydays throughout the Year.
The Thirty-first Edition, 18mo., 6s.; morocco, 8s. 6d.
Also Foolscap 8vo. 7s. 6d. ; morocco, 10s. 6d.
And 32mo. morocco, 5s.; cloth, 3s. 6d.

LYRA INNOCENTIUM, or Thoughts in Verse on the Ways
of Providence towards Little Children. By the Author of the Christian Year.
Fourth Edition, 32mo. 3s. 6d. ; morocco, 5s.
Also foolscap 8vo. cloth, 7s. 6d. ; morocco, 10s. 6d.

THE BAPTISTERY, OR THE WAY OF ETERNAL LIFE.

By the Author of the Cathedral. Third Edition, 8vo. 15s. cloth; 1l. 1s. morocco.
Also 32mo. 5s. morocco.

HYMNS FOR THE WEEK AND THE SEASONS.

Translated from the Latin. 12mo. 4s.

SOME OF THE 500 POINTS OF GOOD HUSBANDRY AND
HUSWIFERY. By Tuomas Tusser, Gentleman. 16mo. 2s. 6d.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY JOHN HENRY PARKER. *.

Pe Sa EE) te SE A OR Oe: *
o THE PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN’S LIBRARY ;

A SERIES OF CHEAP PUBLICATIONS, FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION

Learn To Diz.—[Surron. ] 3 ; .
PRIVATE Devorions.—[SPIncKEs. ] . 3 :
Tue Imrration or Curist.—[a KeEmpis.]
MANUAL oF PRAYER FOR THE Youne.—[ Ken. ]
THE GoLpEN Grove.—[ Taytor. ]

Dainty Exercises.—[ Horneck. ]

Lire or AmBrose BonwickE

Lire or Bisuor Buti.—[ Netson. ]

ComPANION To THE PRAYER Book

SELECTIONS FROM Hooxer.—[ Kes te. ] : .
Apvice To A Frienp.—[Parrick.] .
REPENTANCE AND Fastinc.—[ Parrickx. }

On Prayer.—[Parrick.] “
PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN, Part I.—[ SuErxock. }
Parr II.—[Suertocx. ]
MEDITATIONS ON THE Evcuarist.—[Surron. ]}
Learn To Live.—[Surron.] }

Tue Heart's Ease.—[Patricx.] . = :
Doctrine or THE ENGLISH Cuurcu.—[Hey.in. |
Hoty Livine.—[Bp. Taytor.]

Hoty Dyinc.—[Br. Taytor.]

Conresstons or St, AuGuUSTINE

CHEAP BOOKS FOR PAROCHIAL USE.

Berens’ History of the Prayer Book - = =
Beveridge’s Sermons on the Church - = E
Beveridge on the Catechism - = = .
Cotton’s Explanation of Obsolete Words in the Bible -

Hammond’s Parenesis, with a Discourse of Heresy in Defence of our Church

against the Romanist —- : = = 3
Henshaw’s Meditations, Miscellaneous, Holy, and Humane -
Laud’s Speeches on the Liturgy, &c. - - -
Le Mesurier’s Prayers for the Sick - - = 2

Scandret’s Sacrifice the Divine Service = = =
Sherlock on the Catechism - - = 3 =
Sparrow’s Rationale on the Book of Common Prayer -
Spelman’s Rights of Churches - = = 3
The Seven Penitential Psalms - = = =
Vincent of Lerins against Heresy —- - = -

Wilson’s Srera Privata (entire) - - - -
Wilson on the Lord’s Supper (ungarbled edition) - -
— bound, with gilt edges - -

Winslow’s Remains, or the Catholic Churchman in his Life and Death

Wither’s Hymns of the Church = 2 2 2
Select Hymns - - - = =

NRE RB eB Oe NW OR tee

NNNOrF REF NNNN HE EE ee EOC Oe eee

Cor wn Y%

SlSMAASSSCOCAARRSCASCHLAaAcaASR

OaAadaR

SCOSTHBSHANAADAAAHRSCSCOS

nceton Theological Seminary Libraries

! eo , : P)

Ne rt reoe
A

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Two treatises on the Christian priesthood and on the dignity of the episcopal order : with a prefatory discourse in answer to a book entitled The rights of the Christian Church, &c., and an appendix"

See other formats