it; the first is clearly no principle or fundamental point of Christianity; and the second is confessedly extraordinary ; therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles. 3. Lastly: The primitive church did 'de facto,' and believe themselves to be tied 'de jure' to use this rite of confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism. St. Clemens Alexandrinus, in Eusebius, tells a story of a young man whom St. John had converted and committed to a bishop to be brought up in the faith of Christendom: "Qui," saith St. Clement, "eum baptismi sacramento illuminavit, posteà verò sigillo Domini, tanquam perfectâ et tutâ ejus animi custodiâ, obsignavit." The bishop first 'baptized' him, then consigned' him. Justin Martyr says, (speaking 'pro more ecclesiæ,'' according to the custom of the church,') that when the mysteries of baptism were done, then the faithful are consigned, or confirmed. 6 St. Cyprian relates to this story of St. Philip and the apostles, and gives this account of the whole affair: "Et idcircò quia legitimum et ecclesiasticum baptismum consequuti fuerant, baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat; sed tantummodo id quod deerat, id à Petro et Johanne factum erat, ut, oratione pro eis habitâ et manu impositâ, invocaretur et infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesiâ baptizantur, præpositis ecclesiæ offerantur; ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, et signaculo Dominico confirmenturi." St. Peter and St. John, by imposing their hands on the converts of Samaria, praying over them, and giving them the Holy Ghost, made supply to them of what was wanting after baptism: and this is to this day done in the church; for new baptized people are brought to the bishops, and, by imposition of their hands, obtain the Holy Ghost. But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the primitive faith of Christendom may see it in the decretal epistles of Cornelius, the martyr, to Fabianus, recorded by Eusebius; in the epistlek written to Julius and Julianus, bishops, under the name of St. Clement; in the epistle' of Lib. iii. Hist. cap. 17. h Quæst. 157. ad. Orthod. Urban P. and martyr; in Tertullian", in St. Austin", and in St. Cyril of Jerusalem, whose whole third Mystagogique catechism is concerning confirmation. This only: "The catholics, whose Christian prudence it was, in all true respects, to disadvantage heretics, lest their poison should infect like a pest, laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime,' He was baptized in his bed, and was not confirmed,' Unde nec Spiritum Sanctum unquam potuerit promereri; Therefore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost:" So Cornelius in the forequoted epistle. Whence it is evident, that then it was the belief of Christendom, that the Holy Ghost was, by no ordinary ministry, given to faithful people after baptism, but only by apostolical or episcopal consignation and imposition of hands. What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the minister of confirmation, and that bishops only could do it, I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse. Here the scene lies in Scripture, where it is clear that St. Philip, one of the seventy-two disciples, as antiquity reports him, and an evangelist and a disciple, as Scripture also expresses him, could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father, and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost, but the apostles must go to do it; and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an apostle, and yet this is an ordinary minister which ' de jure' ought, and 'de facto' always was continued in the church. Therefore there must always be an ordinary office of apostleship in the church to do it, that is an office above presbyters, for in Scripture they could never do it; and this is it which we call episcopacy. SECTION IX. And Superiority of Jurisdiction. THIRDLY: The apostles were rulers of the whole church, and each apostle respectively of his several diocese, when he Lib. de Baptismo, c. 8. Lib. ii. contra Lit. Petil. cap. 104. et lib. xv. de Trinit. c. 26. Vide etiam S. Hieron. contra Luciferianos. S. Ambros. lib. ii. c. 2. de Sacramentis, Epist. 3. Euseb. P. et M. ad Episc. Tuscia et Campon. Isidor. Hispal. de Eccles. Offic. lib. ii. c. 26. would fix his chair; and had superintendency over the presbyters and the people, and this by Christ's donation. The charter is by the fathers said to be this: "Sicut misit me Pater, sic ego mitto vos;"" As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you." Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis, et ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate ecclesiam Domini gubernantes ;" said Clarus à Musculâ, the bishop in the council of Carthage, related by St. Cyprian and St. Austin. But, however, it is evident in Scripture, that the apostles had such superintendency over the inferior clergy (presbyters, I mean, and deacons), and a superiority of jurisdiction, and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them, for none of the apostles took this honour, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron. 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the apostles' plenitudinem potestatis.' It was "Sicut misit me Pater," &c.: "As my Father sent, so I send you, my apostles, whom I have chosen." This was not said to presbyters, for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ, but at their first mission to preach repentance; I say no commission at all; they were not spoken to, they were not present. Now then consider. Suppose that, as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of bishops over the presbyters cum grege,' another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of presbyters, what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to show the Divine institution of them as a distinct order from apostles or bishops? Indeed Christ selected seventytwo, and gave them commission to preach; but that commis sion was temporary, and expired before the crucifixion, for aught appears in Scripture. If it be said the apostles did ordain presbyters in every city, it is true, but not sufficient, for so they ordained deacons at Jerusalem, and in all established churches, and yet this will not tantamount to an immediate Divine institution for deacons; and how can it then for presbyters? If we say a constant catholic traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us, that Christ did institute the presbyterate together with episcopacy, and made a John, xx. 21. b Lib. vii, de Baptism. contra Domatist. c. 43. Vide etiam St. Cyprian. de Unit. Eccles, et S. Cyril. in Joh. lib. xii. c. 55. the apostles presbyters as well as bishops; this is true. But then, 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture, and rely upon tradition, which, in this question of episcopacy, will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it; for the same tradition, if that be admitted for good probation, is for episcopal pre-eminence over presbyters, as will appear in the sequel. 2. Though no use be made of this advantage, yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered, that it can never be proved from Scripture, that Christ made the apostles priests first, and then bishops or apostles, but only that Christ gave them several commissions, and parts of the office apos tolical, all which being in one person, cannot by force of Scripture prove two orders. Truth is, if we change the scene of war, and say that the presbyterate, as a distinct order from the ordinary office of apostleship, is not of Divine institution, the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of episcopacy: especially if we consider, that, in all the enumerations of the parts of clerical offices, there is no enumeration of presbyters, but of apostles there is; and the other members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity, or parts of the apostolate; and either must infer many more orders than the church ever yet admitted of, or none distinct from the apostolate; insomuch as apostles were pastors, and teachers, and evangelists, and rulers, and had the gift of tongues, of healing, and of miracles. This thing is of great consideration; and this use I will make of it: That either Christ made the seventy-two to be presbyters, and in them instituted the distinct order of presbyterate, as the ancient church always did believe, or else he gave no distinct com. mission for any such distinct order. If the second be admit ted, then the presbyterate is not of immediate Divine institu tion, but of apostolical only, as is the order of deacons; and the whole plenitude of power is in the order apostolical alone, and the apostles did constitute presbyters with a greater portion of their own power, as they did deacons with a less. But if the first be said, then the commission to the seventytwo presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture, all the rest of their power which now they have, is by apostolical ordinance; and then, although the apostles did admit them" in partem solicitudinis," yet they did not admit them" in plenitudinem potestatis," for then they must have made them apostles, and then there will be no distinction of order, neither by Divine, nor apostolical institution either. I care not which part be chosen, one is certain; but if either of them be true, then, since to the apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power, it follows, that either the presbyters have no power of jurisdiction, as affixed to a distinct order, and then the apostles are to rule them by virtue of the order and ordinary commission apostolical; or, if they have jurisdiction, they do derive it "à fonte apostolorum," and then the apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over presbyters, because presbyters only have it by delegation apostolical. And that I say truth (besides that there is no possibility of showing the contrary in Scripture, by the producing any other commission given to presbyters, than what I have specified,) I will hereafter show it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom, not only that presbyters were actually subordinate to bishops (which I contend to be the ordinary office of apostleship), but that presbyters have no jurisdiction essential to their order, but derivative only from apostolical pre-eminence. 2. Let us now see the matter of fact. They that can inflict censures upon presbyters have certainly superiority of jurisdiction over presbyters, for " Æqualis æqualem coercere non potest," saith the law. Now it is evident, in the case of Diotrephes, a presbyter, and a bishop would-be, that, for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the catholic communion, without cause, and without authority, St. John the apostle threatened him in his epistle to Gaius, dià TOUTO ἐὰν ἔλθω, ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ, &c. “ Wherefore when I come, I will remember him ;" and all that would have been to very little purpose, if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punished his delinquency. 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the apostles by a new ordination, as Matthias succeeded Judas, who, before his new ordination, was one of the seventy-two, as Eusebius, Epiphanius, and St. Jerome affirm, and in Scripture is Lib. i. Hist. c. 12, et lib. ii. c. 9. • Hæres. xx. De Script. Eccles. in Mat, vide Irenæum, lib. iv. c. 63. Tertul. de Præscript. |