Separation of churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical from such principles as are least controverted and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism ... by Henry Dodwell ...

CHAP. XXIII. What influence the Opinion which prevailed in the modern Schools, That Bishops and Presbyters differ∣ed not Order but in Degree, might have upon the intention of the Ordeiners of those times? (Book 23)

THE CONTENTS.

[§ I] The Objection. Answ. 1. It seems rather to have been Interest than Conscience that inclined men to the belief of this Opinion. This cleared from a short History of this Opinion. §. I, II, III, IV, V. Answ. 2. Though this Opinion had been received more universally, than it appears it was, by the Multitude, yet it is not likely that it would be so received by the Bishops, upon whose Intention the validity of the Orders conferred by them must depend. §. VI. Answ. 3. Though the Bishops of those Ages had been universally of this Opinion, yet it does not thence fol∣low that they must have given to the Presbyters, ordeined by them, the power of ordeining others. It does not follow from the Notions of those times. §. VII. Nor from the reason of the thing. §. VIII, IX. The Principles on which those Persons pro∣ceeded in making one Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery did not oblige them to believe that the Power of ordeining others was a right of simple Presbyters. §. X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV. Answ. 4. They, who then held this Opinion, did, in all likelihood, neither intend, nor think of, any consequence from it prejudicial to the establishments then received. §. XV, XVI.

THE only considerable Objection that I can foresee in this matter, is the opinion which then obteined among some of the modern School-men, that Bi∣shops and Presbyters were all one Order, and dif∣fered only in degree, that the consecration of a Bishop did not give him a new Character, but extend the old one which he had received before when he was ordeined Presby∣ter; and the influence that this opinion might have on the Practice of those Bishops, if any such there were, who then be∣lieved it, to give the whole essential power of Bishops to those whom they ordeined Presbyters, yet so as to restrain them in the practice of it by their Canonical Obedience. I do not take all the advantages I might against this opinion, as it was main∣tained in those Ages, to shew that it is too suspicious that it was rather pique than Conscience that then brought men to it. Whenever it was vented, it seems to have been vented with particular design, and particular provocation. Not to ascend to the more knowing times, for in truth I am not desirous to touch the reputation any men have gained in the World where it may be spared with the interest of Truth, that is indeed where errors have not been introduced into the World by the Authority of men of undeserved reputation, and there sure none can blame me for complying with so unpleasing a necessity. The first time that it was retrieved after St. Hierome seems to have been in the eighth Century, and then with a particular design upon the Chorepiscopi, whose power was then maligned as derogatory to the Ordinaries. And the wisest course for reducing them, and withal the least invi∣dious, was thought to be, not so much directly to magnifie the power of the Ordinary as to magnifie the dignity of them who had been subject to the Chorepiscopi, which they endeavoured not only by degrading the Chorepiscopus to the orders of a Presby∣ter, but by extolling the office of a Presbyter to an equality in some regards with the Bishops, to whom they, the Chorepisco∣pus himself, as well as other Presbyters, were obliged to pay o∣bedience, as indeed he was. All this dispute was nothing but pure design, and how very disingenuously it was managed, ap∣pears from the several Epistles of antient Popes counterfeited in that Age, for this very purpose to prove the Chorepiscopi to have been simple Presbyters, which may justly make us jealous

of the integrity of the same party in this other principle which they advanced in opposition to it.

[§ II] HAVING therefore gained their design in the subversion of this Office, and the Bishops themselves not being hitherto con∣cerned to oppose this opinion whilest it was so favourable to their interests, and whilest it added to their power by the ru∣in of so considerable a Rival; though we have reason to be∣lieve that this usefulness of the Opinion must have endeared it to the Affections of those who had served themselves by it, yet we find little mention of it from that time till it became again useful. That was when the Popes aspired to a Superi∣ority above all Bishops and Councils. Then it was that Di∣spensations and Delegations grew frequent, so that nothing was performable by the Bishop by vertue of his Office, but what was communicated to simple Presbyters by Papal Delegations. This as it highly tended to the advancement of the Roman See, so we may have reason to believe that all the Arts of the Roman Court and its Parasites were employed in promoting it. And there was no more likely policy for it than this, to make use of the same way for the subversion of the Episcopal Power which the Bishops themselves had before been so favourable to, when it was used against the Chorepiscopi. Which was a po∣licy of the same kind with that which that politick See had made use of in their disputes with the Patriarch of Constantino∣ple. They then seemed not so much concerned for his equal∣ling himself with them, as for his preferring himself before the other Patriarchs. This they knew to be a more popular Art to make him odious without discovering their own ambition. And in our present case, we know that this was the reason that made the Papal Bishops, even in the Council of Trent so averse to the asserting the Divine institution of their own order. And this I believe our Brethren themselves will confess to have been a very corrupt design. And yet in these unhappy times, whilest this ill design was driving on, the School-men flourished, of whose suffrages they are so proud in this particular.

[§ III] AND as the Pope was thus interested to oppress the Epi∣scopal Authority whilest it was capable to stand in competition with him; so when afterwards the generality of the Bishops were so linked to him by the dependence he had brought them to, as that they could not be trusted as equal Judges in matters

concerning his Authority, and yet the publick exigence of the Age forced them on those disputes, they were then also inte∣rested to weaken their Authority when they found it so preju∣dicial to their great design. This was plainly the case when the disputes came in between Popes and General Councils. If those were to be tryed by Bishops, the Popes must evidently have carried it. Not only the dependence of those, who were already made, on him for their preferment, but the multitudes more he might have made, when he had seen it useful for his purpose, of Titulars and Dependents, as he did in Trent, might have secured him of the major votes of the Bishops in any Coun∣cil that would be swayed by the major votes. This the Papa∣lins very well understood in the Council of Basil when know∣ing how small a proportion the Bishops bore in that Council to the rest that were allowed their votes there,* 1.1 and how sure they were to be over-voted, so long as those other votes were allow∣ed, they desired that the matters might be determined by the Bishops alone according to the Precedents of former Councils. But this the Cardinal of Arles the great Patron of that Coun∣cil would by no means endure, and among other Arguments on which he insists in asserting the right of Presbyters to a vote in Councils, this is the principal, of the opinion of St. Hierome concerning the original equality of Bishops and Presbyters. And considering how many innovations the Councils of those times, and this among the rest, were forced upon by the exigency of their affairs, rather than by their Judgment, such as the votes of the Ʋniversities and of the Deputies of the Nations, (of which I verily believe no antienter precedent can be given) none can admire if in this they were also transported beyond what they would have done otherwise. And he who considers the rea∣sonings of the Council for the Superiority of Councils above the Pope, as they are represented by Aeneas Sylvius who was among them, and then a friend of them when he gave this account of them, will find that they are the very same which have been since insisted on by all Republicans and Enemies of Mo∣narchy in general, by which it is easie to judg how far the men of that party, (many of whom were Subjects to Mo∣narchs) were transported with the heats of the disputes then managed. I mention not the exigency of affairs which ne∣cessitated the Fathers of the Reformation to take refuge in this

Opinion, when they also found how the generality of the Bi∣shops then in being were, by their interest, obliged to stand by the Roman Court in the Prerogatives then disputed, as well as by the Oaths they had taken at their Consecration; and con∣sequently how impossible it was to expect an impartial deci∣sion of their Disputes from an Order so interessed and obliged whether in or out of Councils. I have really much better thoughts of the integrity of these Persons than of the Ages now men∣tioned. But even well meaning Persons are undiscernibly in∣clinable to favour Propositions which are inclinable to their Interests, and to have as little kindness for such as are against their interests. And how far favour may go for the deci∣ding things which are of themselves any thing disputable, to divert men from considering the uttermost that can be said for a contrary cause, and to make little things seem great when they are produced for a favourable Opinion, he must be a stran∣ger to Humane Nature and Conversation who has not obser∣ved. However their Authority cannot be considerable in this matter, because no Ordinations depended on them.

[§ IV] I DO not, by this discourse, in the least prejudg against the evidence producible by our Adversaries in this cause. I do not therefore prejudg against the Truth of their cause, because their interest obliged them to defend it. I am sensible how very possible it is that truth may concur with interest. All there∣fore that I infer from these cases, is, that there was in all these cases interest that might divert Persons who were not very wary, as well as sincere, from the quest of Truth. But truly consi∣dering the light of those times by which alone they were en∣abled to judg, without prejudice to the light of our own Age which our modern Adversaries have produced; and consider∣ing the prejudices by which they were generally acted, I con∣fess I cannot see how to excuse the mainteiners of this Opini∣on in those times from insincerity. For how was it possible for them who received Isidore Mercator's wares for genuine, to doubt of the Primitive Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, when he must find all the particular subordinations of the Episcopal Hierarchy so minutely described in Epistles ascribed to Clement, Cletus, Linus, &c. And what one was there from Hincmar's time downwards to the times we speak of, who ever questioned

them? Who could question it that believed the many Legends then extant concerning the Primitive times of Christianity? And who was there then who could find in his heart to question them? especially considering their incompetency to judg of the evidence produced by our modern Adversaries. They knew nothing of most of those Testimonies amassed by Blondel. Ma∣ny of their names they had not heard of, at least they had not seen their Works, or if they had seen, they could not understand them, as many of them as were in Greek and were not then translated. The Scriptures themselves as they had been quoted by St. Hierome for this purpose, were the principal Ar∣guments they were capable of knowing. But it is withal notorious how much more was then ascribed to Commen∣tators of note than any evidence of the Text it self for the sense of the Scripture.

[§ V] AND therefore I am apt to think that St. Hierome's Au∣thority in applying those Texts prevailed more with them than any Inferences they could have made from the Texts them∣selves. For we otherwise see very many instances of this par∣tiality, not only of forced Literal senses, but also of Mystical ones, which passed unquestioned among them, and were used upon all occasions as Arguments against Adversaries on the Au∣thority of Commentators of far less note than he was of. And the single Authority of St. Hierome against, not only the con∣current Testimonies of his own Age, and of Authorities then e∣steemed every way as considerable as his own, but, (which past for a much more prevailing Argument in the Ages I am speaking of,) against the concurrent practice of the then Catho∣lick Church, could not, in any probability, be taken for so con∣vincing an Argument in Conscience in times that were so ma∣nifestly swayed by Authorities. I mention not the partialities that most probably got St. Hierome himself that Authority a∣mong them, that the very favourable Epistle of his to Damasus wherein he so extols the See of Rome, seems to have recom∣mended him to the counterfeiter of the Roman Council under the name of Gelasius, not long before the time of Isidore Mer∣cator, as the Authority of that Council in Isidore's Collection might recommend him downwards, as soon as that bundle of Forgeries had once prevailed universally. All the use that I make at present of these insinuations is, that if it be suspicious

whether the men who then followed these Principles did em∣brace them out of a sincere sense of their Truth, then they can∣not be presumed to have been Principles of Conscience. Which if they were not, this is sufficient to shew that they are not fit measures of the Power that was actually given by the Bishops of that Age.

[§ VI] AND though they had been received more universally than it appears they were, among the Multitude, yet how is it like∣ly that it was so received among the Bishops themselves? Is it likely that they would be generally so partial to an Opini∣on so destructive of their common rights as Bishops? Is it like∣ly that they would be so partial when there was no evident prevailing consideration in point of Conscience that might in∣duce them to it; when it was a matter of dispute even among disinterested Persons, and debated by Arguments and Authori∣ties at least as considerable on their side as on the others? If any particular Bishops had been so strangely partial against them∣selves, and thought themselves obliged in Conscience to be so; yet sure there is no reason to make use of it as a presumption to judg of the minds of them who had not otherwise decla∣red their minds expresly, and to judg of them universally. And yet it has appeared that the whole use of this opinion, for judging what Power was actually given, is only as a pre∣sumption; and even this presumption is useless concerning others than the Bishops. None but they pretended to the Power of giving Orders, at least not to the exercise of that Power. And therefore whatever any else thought besides the Bishops is very impertinent to our present purpose, because it can give us no assurance what was actually intended by the Bishops, and it is only their intention by which we can, in prudence, judg what Power was actually given by them.

[§ VII] BUT let us suppose, that which, in prudence, can never be supposed, that the Bishops of those Ages were universally of this opinion, that their own Order was the same with that of Presbyters, yet it does not thence follow that they must have given Presbyters the Power of Ordination. It neither follows from the Notions of those times, nor from the reason of the thing. And sure we cannot better judg of a matter of this nature than by one of these two ways. It does not follow from the Notions of those times. For even they who thought them to be

the same Order, yet made them different degrees; and that not only from the custom of the Church, but by Divine Right also. But it could not have appeared how they could distinguish them, even in degree, but by allowing something in practice to the Superior degree as a peculiar Prerogative, and there was nothing thought so a 1.2 peculiar to the Episcopal degree as this power of Ordination. This was the very particular excepted by St. Hie∣rome b 1.3 himself, even where he most of all pleads for parity in other things. I know there are of our Brethren who under∣stand St. Hierome's words, not of the original right of appro∣priating ordination to them as left to them by the Apostles, but of a priviledg actually allowed them by the practice of the Church in that Age wherein he wrote, which I shall not now dispute. It suffices that he made no mention of Ordination among the in∣stances of their parity; nay, that he expresly excepts this par∣ticular among his other proofs of the identity of their Office, without telling expresly on what right it was that he made the exception, which were very fair occasions to induce them to believe, that he did not intend to give them the power of Ordination, especially when it was withal notorious, and con∣fessed by himself, that he lived in the Communion of a Church, wherein Presbyters were debarred from the exercise of this Power. It suffices that they who, in that Age followed his Authority, were not obliged by any of their designs in promoting his opini∣on to understand him of a parity in the power of Ordination; nay, never seem actually to have understood him so, whatever other sense has been applied to him by those who have more subtilly considered him in our present Age. It is not St. Hi∣erome's true opinion that I am now concerned for, but that of those who might then have followed him. If they never understood him of a parity between Bishops and Presbyters in the power of ordination; If they did not really believe them equal in this particular; if they actually believed that this distincti∣on of degree was from the Apostles, and that this power of or∣dination was the peculiar Prerogative of the Superior degree; then certainly they who then followed St. Hierome, might not∣withstanding, if they maintained these things also together with his opinion, thinks themselves obliged never to give the power of ordination to the Presbyters that were then ordeined by them. So far our Brethren are from any solid ground

of a presumption that such a thing was ever intended for them.

[§ VIII] AND as this consequence was far from being owned in the actual sense of those times, so neither will it indeed follow from the opinion of these Persons, that simple Presbyters had any right to a power of Ordination. Though they believed Episcopacy to be the same Order with Presbytery, yet their acknowledging a difference in degree was enough to hinder them from confoun∣ding the peculiar rights of the several degrees; and this we see was taken for the peculiar right of Episcopacy. Though they conceived no new Character to have been imprinted in the Con∣secration of a Bishop, yet withal they confessed that the Cha∣racter of his Presbytery was extended. And why may not this extension extend his Power also, at least to some Acts to which he had not Power before? Nay, certainly this very thing was intended by them, that it should actually do so. And if so, then certainly this extended Power must have implied an addi∣tion of Power above what was in it before it was so extended. Whence it will plainly follow, that this Power of Ordination to which the Episcopal Character was extended was wanting in them whilest they were simple Presbyters, that is, before it was so ex∣tended. And therefore they who were of this Opinion, could not think themselves obliged to give this Power to simple Pres∣byters. As to the Canonical exercise of their Power, Presbyters still depended on their Bishops, even in things not exceeding their Power as Presbyters. But when a simple Presbyter was li∣censed to Preach or hear Confessions, this was not properly cal∣led an extension of his Character. By which it seems most like∣ly that by this extension of the Character they did not only mean a Canonical Liberty to exercise more Acts of the same Power which they supposed them to have received before, but an ad∣dition of a new branch of Power, which because Presbyters want, if they presume to exercise it, their doing so must prove not only Ʋncanonical but invalid. Though they believed the sub∣stance of the Power to have been the same, yet certainly the least that could have been meant by the difference of Degree be∣tween Bishops and Presbyters must have been that Bishops had that same Power independently which the Presbyters had de∣pendently on the Bishops, as to the exercise of it. Undoubted∣ly this they did grant who held this Opinion of St. Hierome

in the greatest rigor in those Ages I am speaking of, if they did not grant something more. And yet this is sufficient for my present design, both to shew why these very Persons might not have thought it fit to give this power of Ordination to simple Presbyters, and why it is very rational for us also to presume that they did not actually give it them.

[§ IX] FOR by the fundamental Principles of all Societies the Power of giving Power to others is still reserved as a Prerogative of him who has that same Power independently. And the rea∣son of it is very plain as to both parts, as to him that has the Power dependently, and as to him who has it indepen∣dently. He who has the Power of administring the Sacraments, yet so as to depend on the Authority of another in the exerci∣sing of that Power, cannot therefore with any Justice make a valid conveyance of that Power to another, because he cannot himself be taken for an absolute Master of that Power. Though the Power it self be given irrevocably, yet while it is given with the condition of dependence, is cannot be alienable by the Per∣son to whom it is given, without the givers consent, because the right of alienation supposes a property of our own, and dependence implies a reservation of right to him on whom we do depend, which right, as it is absolutely necessary to an in∣tire alienation, so it cannot, with any Justice or validity be dis∣posed of without the consent of him whose property it is. Be∣sides that giving of Power does plainly belong to the exercise of Power, and to a higher degree of exercise of it than that of the exercise of the Power so given, as it implies a greater Power to give a Power, which includes a capacity of all the Acts belong∣ing to it, than only to give a liberty to exercise a particular Act. And therefore he who has not a just title to give way to the exercise of the Power so given, can be much less supposed to have one to that higher exercise of Power by which the Power it self is disposed of. It is also clear as to him that has the Power independently. It is necessary for Government that all others do depend on those who are themselves supposed inde∣pendent. But this cannot be understood unless the independent Power alone be allowed the Power of admitting to Office whom he pleases. If others may be allowed to give their Power, they will soon make themselves independent, if they were not so at first, by making a party and perpetuating it. But because this

whole Power of giving Power in the Persons I am speaking of is so eternally irreconcilable with the safety of Societies, therefore it is fit it should never be given them; and therefore, in the way of presumption, for which I am at present concerned, it is to be presumed that it never was intended for them.

[§ X] BUT if our Brethren would be pleased to reflect on the Principles on which these Persons proceeded in making one Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery, they would find that they did not in the least oblige them to believe that this Power of ordeining others was a right of simple Presbyters, The plain reason was, that they made their distinction of Orders only in relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And because simple Priests had the full Power of this Sacrament, of consecrating as well as of administring it, so that there was nothing higher re∣quisite for the completion of this solemnity reserved to the Bi∣shop, nor capable of being reserved to him, therefore there was on this account no room left for any Order above Priesthood. And because this Power of transubstantiating the Eucharistical Elements was then looked on as the highest instance of Power that could be communicated to Mortals, because this was thought sufficient to exempt from all Subjection to temporal Princes; nay, to place the Spiritual Power above the Princes; and yet in this instance of Power, which had been so extremely extolled in the Disputes of those Ages between the Popes and Princes, the Bi∣shops could pretend to do no more than what was perform∣able by every ordinary Priest, therefore it can be no wonder if, in this regard, many of them could not allow any Order su∣perior to that of simple Priesthood. He that is but a little con∣versant in the writings of that Age will find that as the Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation was very eagerly mainteined as the great recommendation of the Sacred Power in those Disputes which were then raised concerning it; so it is particularly ur∣ged for the honour of Presbytery, as often as they were put upon magnifying their Office. And this I therefore take in earnest to have been the true reason that inclined those of the Writers of that Age that followed this Opinion, rather than the pretended instances of Scripture, or even the Authority of St. Hierome himself. For these were Principles for which as they were more firmly interested, so I believe they were also much more heartily believed in that Age than any on•• parti∣cular

controverted sense of Scripture recommended on the Au∣thority of one particular Father. And therefore whatever Su∣periority of Bishops over Priests was reconcilable with this al∣lowance of a Power of consecrating the Eucharist to simple Priests, all this might have been acknowledged by these very Persons notwithstanding their making them the same Order. And con∣sidering that this Power of Ordination was thus reconcilable, this Opinion could not hinder those Persons from appropriating it to the Bishops.

[§ XI] FOR notwithstanding this Power of the Priesthood over the Corpus Christi verum was thought common to them with the Bi∣shops, yet the Power over the Corpus Christi Mysticum (this was the language of those Ages) was then acknowledged for the peculiar right of the Bishops. And what can our Adversaries think themselves gainers by this Opinion, as it was maintein∣ed then, if they did not think the peculiarity of this Power sufficient to constitute a distinct Order? What matter is it whe∣ther they owned the word or no, so long as they owned the thing which our Adversaries may possibly think more proper∣ly imported by the word? Whatever the word do most pro∣perly signifie, yet when we use it, as we do now, to judg of the meaning of those who used it, we are to take it as they understood it, how improperly soever they understood it. And we have the rather reason to do so in this case, because the word had no notorious sense antecedent to those Ages which they might be obliged to mean, and which they might there∣fore be presumed to mean where they did not very expresly de∣clare the contrary. The terms of Ordo and Gradus, as they were terms of Art, were intirely introduced by themselves, unmentioned in the Sacred Writers, no nor as the constant lan∣guage of the Church, neither of the Catholick Church, nor even of the Latine Church for many of the most ancient Ages. And why might not they be allowed to impose their own significa∣tion on their own terms?

[§ XII] IF our Adversaries say, that the allowance of this Power on∣ly to Bishops will make them a distinct Order, then they must confess that the Authors we are speaking of were of our mind in the thing, and of theirs only in the use of the words, which they will find will stand them in no stead for the present de∣sign of proving their Succession. They must then say that those

Authors make Episcopacy really a distinct Order with us, though they were pleased to call it only a distinct Degree with them. But if they grant that this Power is not sufficient to make them a distinct Order, we shall not be very solicitous whether they use that word so long as they acknowledg this Power. This Power of Government being appropriated to the Bishops will, in the consequence, appropriate the Power of Ordination to them, not only as Ordination implies the giving of the Power of Go∣vernment to inferior Governours, but also as it is requisite for the ends of Government, not to give simple Presbyters a Power of giving their Power to others, for fear of that independence which would, in course, follow thereupon, even in the exercise of that Power. Whatever our Adversaries may think of this reasoning in it self, yet certainly they cannot deny it to have been agreeable to the actual Notions of those times, which is as much as I am concerned for at present.

[§ XIII] AND if we would, according to another Notion of those times, found the Power over the Corpus Christi Mysticum on the power over the Corpus Christi verum, yet even so there was room left for asser∣ting the Power of Ordination to the Bishops alone. For though the Power over the Corpus Christi verum was taken for the highest exercise of Power that was communicated to Mortals, yet even in that exercise of Power there were several Degrees which might very probably incline them to acknowledg a distinction, rather in Degree than in Order, between the Persons distinguish∣ed by them; and this distinction of Degrees was sufficient for appropriating the Power of Ordination to the Bishops alone. Even in the exercise of that Power, he who had a Power to give his Power to another must be supposed to have a greater degree of that same Power than he who had it only for his own Per∣son, and so that it must expire with his Life. Whether this was a distinct Power or a distinct Degree of the same Power seems to have been the main dispute between them who disputed whether Episcopacy were a distinct Order or Degree from Pres∣bytery. Whoever was in the right, it is sufficient for my pur∣pose that they were both agreed in this, that this Supreme, whether we call it Power, or only Degree of Power was ap∣propriated to the Bishops, so that it was never so much as gi∣ven to ordinary Presbyters. And what matter was it whether they called the Character of the Bishop a new one, o•• an ex∣tension

of the old one, which he had when he was made Pres∣byter? These were also terms first brought into general use by themselves from the private use of St. Augustine, and it was in their pleasure how they would use them. It is sufficient for me that the Power of ordeining others was not grounded bare∣ly on the Character it self, but on the Character as extended, and therefore could not be validly challenged by them, who had the Character alone given them without its extension.

[§ XIV] AND though the Power of Jurisdiction over the Corpus Chri∣sti Mysticum for term of Life were grounded on the Power o∣ver the Corpus Christi verum for time of Life also, so that he who had the Power over the Corpus Christi verum could oblige the Mystical Body to what terms he pleased, and set up what Jurisdiction he pleased over them, when they could not have the true Body without him; yet so it self there was a right reservable to the Bishop over the true Body which might both oblige Priests to a dependence on the Bishop, and the whole Church to a nearer and more necess••ry dependency on Episcopacy than on the Priesthood. The Priests not having the exercise of their Power over the true Body, but by appointment of the Bishop, must oblige the Mystical Body to a greater dependence on the Bishop, than on Priests, in the exercise of this common Power. For this will it put in the Power of the Bishop to deprive the Mystical Body of the true Body, if he should forbid the Priests the exercise of their Power, though against their consent: and will withal put it out of the Power of the Priest to oblige the Mystical to any dependence on them, in opposition to the Bishop, by denying them the true Body when the Bishop requires them to give it, because their presuming to refuse it, in such a case, must be an invasion of the Bishops right, and must consequent∣ly infer a Nullity in what they do without right to do it. But the Priests not having this Power given them of giving their Power to others, this must, in regard of this dependence of the Mystical Body on the true Body, free the People from a depen∣dence on the Priesthood, which cannot secure them of the true Body in another generation. And on the contrary the Bishops having this Power given them, and to them alone this will ob∣lige the Mystical Body to depend on them for a Succession, be∣cause they alone can continue the administration of the true Body to them through all Ages of Succession.

[§ XV] AND as these Doctrines are very reconcilable with that of making Episcopacy and Presbytery one Order, on the Princi∣ples now mentioned; so they were certainly the actual sense of those who followed that Doctrine in that Age. Most cer∣tainly they who were of this opinion could not intend to fol∣low the Doctrines, I do not say of the Aerians who had been reckoned in the Catalogues of Hereticks,* 1.4 long before their own times, but even of the Wiclevists and Waldenses who had been more lately censured for mainteining the equality of Bishops and Presbyters. They who know how odious the name of Heretick was in those days; and how express condemnations of them were required from Persons who were to be admit∣ted to preferments; and how these Catalogues and Councils who had censured these Persons were the Standards whereby such Persons were obliged to judg who were Hereticks; they, I say, cannot believe that the Bishops of that Age could have kept either their Communion or their Preferments, if they had been of our Adversaries mind in asserting the Order and Cha∣racter of Episcopacy to have been the same with that of Priest∣hood. And they must still remember that it is by what was mainteined by them with a good conscience, that we must judg what Power was actually designed for the Presbyters ordein∣ed by them. We must not therefore understand these Opini∣ons so as to think that the Persons, who mainteined them in the Ages we are speaking of, intended to exclude all difference between the two Offices. And if any difference were acknow∣ledged, it must have been this of Ordination, which St. Hierome himself, the principal Author of this Opinion, had acknow∣ledged for such an inseparable peculiar Prerogative of Episcopa∣cy. And therefore we have all the reason we can desire to presume that even Persons of this Perswasion in that Age did intend to reserve this Power from the Presbyters that were or∣deined by them.

[§ XVI] FOR it is particularly considerable that this case of theirs is not capable of that Apology for submitting to an unjust Go∣vernment, which is usually, and I think very justly, made use of to excuse St. Hierome. He indeed seems to have thought that in the Apostles Age the Presbyters had a greater interest in the Government of the Church than was allowed them in his own. But this did not hinder his submission to the Government

even of his own time, though it had not been so just; nay, did not hinder him from thinking that it might then have a very just, though an only humane right. It was his sense, not of the Government in the Apostles times, but of the Government of his own times, that concerned his present practice. But that which these Persons taught, who made Bishops and Presbyteries of the same Order, concerned not only the Apostles Age but their own. They thought them still to be, not only de Jure, but de Facto, of the same Order, and therefore could not think themselves under any higher Duty to their Bishops than what was consistent with their being of the same Order. And there∣fore if this had allowed them a Power of Ordeining others, why did they not challenge that Power? why did they suf∣fer the Bishops to ingross it to themselves, and to secure their present Ʋsurpations to posterity for ever by an unquestioned peaceable prescription? Could not any one bold Spirit be found who would stand up for the honour of his Order? Could nei∣ther interest, nor conscience neither, animate some to give a pre∣••edent of contradicting it? they do not seem in those Ages to have been generally so me••k, and so fearful of disturbing the publick Peace for what they thought to be their right. Mighty quarrels were then engaged on for matters of incomparably more trivial concernment; and where withal they had less in∣terest either to provoke or animate them than here. And if in∣deed they had thought of any such consequences, as they must have thought, if their meaning in this Assertion were such as our Adversaries are apt to understand it to have been; how came it to pass that it escaped the censures of their then pre∣sent Superiors? Is it likely that it could have escaped those censures in such an Age wherein policy was their principal study, and the principal employment of their zeal was the mainte∣nance of their present establishments? Did none of these Persons who mainteined these Opinions ever come themselves to be Governours? And if their Opinions altered with their Interests, must they not then have been conscious of the ill consequence, and mischievousness of what they had mainteined formerly? If none of them had been conscious of these things from their own experience, yet sure their jealousie, and the momentousness of the thing, would have made them suspicious, though they wanted solid grounds; if they had only likelihoods. And these

suspicions were sufficient to have awakened all their diligence for suppressing them. When I consider these things, I cannot but think that the Persons who then mainteined this Opinion concerning the identity of the Order of Bishops and Presbyters must needs have been very far from thinking of any consequence pre∣judicial to their present establishments, much less from attemp∣ting any thing in practice, till pure necessity, as well as opportu∣nity, forced them upon it. They did not therefore pretend to excuse Presbyters from the least instance of their Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary, even of that Obedience which was prescribed by the Canons of those times. So far it is from be∣ing probable that they intended to give them the peculiar pre∣rogative of the Bishop, the Power of ordeining others; nay, so far do they seem from so much as judging it fit in Conscience that this Power should be given to them who were then ordein∣ed Presbyters. And yet from what has been already said, it appears sufficiently that nothing short of their actual intenti∣ons to give them this Power can suffice to legitimate our Bre∣threns present Ordinations.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aen. Sylv. Com∣ment. de gest. Conc. Bas.
• a 1.2

  So Epiphanius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. H••res. lxxv.4. And again: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ib. And St. Chrysostome: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. init. Hom. ii. in 1. ad Tim. p. 289.
• b 1.3

  Quid enim facit, exceptâ Ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat? Ep. 85. ad Euagr.
• * 1.4

  S. Augustini & Epiphanli.