Which is the True Church, Part 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. What mean you by the word Bishop?
W. J. I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastor as hath power and jurisdiction to govern the Sect. 1▪inferior Pastors, Clergy and people within his Diocess, and to confirm and give holy Orders to such as are subject to him.
R. B. Here I desired to know of him, whether he meant a power given by God or by men? and if by God, whether mediately or immediately? But this he was not willing to answer. Saying:
W. J. The definition abstracts from particulars, and subsists without determining that question.
R. B. But sure equivocals make no good definitions; and power or Episcopacy given by God, and given by man, cannot be ejusdem speciei, and therefore the word as to them is equivocal. Here therefore I asked:
Q. 1. Whether, seeing they seem to make the Pope himself but a humane creature (or jure humano) Sect. 2.they set not the Bishop above him, if the Bishop be jure divino. And if not, whether they make not all their Churches humane things; (or however the Roman Church to be humane, and so its form not necessary to Salvation, if the Pope be humane.)
W. J. Where said I that Election was jure humano? that there be an election of him, is jure divino, (by competent Electors): the determination who hic & nunc are competent, is jus Ecclesiasticum.—Know you not that neither the Electors nor Consecrators of him, give him Papal jurisdiction, but Christ?
R. B. 1. You say that there is no need of Revelation to know the Church-Governours: therefore they are not of Gods making, unless it be jure naturali; which none pretend. For God no way giveth right but by natural evidence of this will, or by Revelation, (either natural in the constitution of the Creatures, or natural by Providential alterations, or by Supernatural notice.) 2. If God have not annexed the power to any one sort of Electors choice, or have given no power to any determinate persons to choose a Pope, nor to any to choose the Choosers, then either God giveth no power to the Pope, or else he giveth Papal power to every one that shall be chosen by whomsoever: The later you abhor, for then any man might be Pope at his pleasure, and there might be a thousand at once. The former consequence is plain, because if God make not every man a Pope, but one man in the world; the Donation of God must by God be some way applied to that person rather than to others: Now if God hath neither impowred any determinate (or specified) persons to elect him rather than others, nor any to elect Electors, nor yet made the Consecrators the determining appliers, there is no way by which God applieth it more to that man than to others. You neither do nor can name any other way. Now you confess that God hath not given the power of Election to any determinate persons, but that the Electors may be sometimes people, sometime Presbyters, or both; sometime Princes, sometime Bishops sometime Cardinals. All that God saith you hold, is that they be competent. But this determineth of none. And you neither do, nor can tell us to whom God hath given the power to judg antecedently of the Electors competency, and to choose the choosing persons, without which it will never be any mans work, unless all that think themselves competent may choose Popes. You dare not undertake to tell us, whether it be all the Christian world, or only the City of Rome, Princes, Prelates, Presbyters people, or who, that God hath made choosers of the choosers So that you cannot say that God giveth the Pope his power by your way.
3. But on the by I desire those that say that their Electors or Ordainers give Ministers their power, to learn here this truth from you, that God giveth the power by his Donative ☞word, and men do but determine of the person that shall from God receive it. But yet a determination there must be, and that of Gods appointment.
R. B. I told him that R. Smith, called Bishop of Calcedon, Governour of the English Papists, ubi supra, confesseth it to be no part of their faith that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino. He answereth:
W. J. You should have done well to cite the place; for I have no time to seek whole books over.
R. B. Note what trust is due to this sort of men: I had to him in the same book cited the words in pag. 289. of my book, and R. Calcedons book, cap. 5. the words are: To us it suffereth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor, and this all the Fathers testifie, and all the Catholick Church believeth; but whether it be jure divino, or humano, is no point of faith. Now when he came to the words where I cited them, he wisely takes no notice of them. And now when I refer him to the citation which was a few leaves before, the weary wary man instead of an answer, saith, I should have done well to cite the place, for he hath not time to seek whole books. But what good will well-doing do to such a one as you, where the better it is, the worse you like it? Is not this a false intimation, that I did not cite them?
R. B. Qu. 4. I asked, How shall we know who hath this Episcopal power? What election or consecration is necessary to it? If I know not who hath it, I am never the better. He answereth:Sect. 4.
W. J. As you know who hath temporal power, by an universal or most common consent of the people: The Election is different according to different times, places, and other circumstances; Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal Iurisdiction.
R. B. More hard things still! 1. I know who is King in temporal power in our hereditary Kingdom, by the constitution of the Monarchy confest by all men to be hereditary, and so attested by Law and History; and by most credible testimony, and uncontrouled fame, that CHARLES the Second is the true Heir: And in Elective Kingdoms, as Poland, it is known by publick undenied testimony. But do Bishops become such by their birthright and hereditary Title? who hath asserted that? If it be by Election, the Electors must have just power to elect?
2. But what mean you by common consent of the people? No man can tell whether you join those words to know, or to hath, If you mean that I must know it by the peoples consent, as notifying it to me, it's nothing to our question now; nor is it always true: The greater part of the people may mistake the Prince's right, and suppose it to be in a Usurper, and yet the Prince doth not lose his right by that, nor must I believe them. And I think in your Schisms, no man could say that the common consent of the people, was always for him that carried it at last as right. But if you mean, as you seem, that the universal or common consent of the people, is the determining cause that must qualifie the person for the power, Then either you mean an antecedent or a consequent consent. If antecedent, that is election, which you say may vary. If consequent, it could not cause that which was caused before. And it is not true that the consequent consent of the most of the people, depriveth the King of his Power, or proveth it to be in a Usurper.
3. But seeing you here also say, that Consecration is not absolutely necessary, nor Election by any one sort or way, but may be varied as times vary, you have made either any man a Bishop, that any men will chuse; or you have made no man a Bishop, for want of a determining application; or no man can know himself, or be known to be a Bishop. If the question were, Who is the true Husband of such a woman? and you should say, That her own antecedent consent or election is not necessary, but without it sometimes the Kings election, sometimes the Ministers, sometimes the Parents may serve; and Matrimonial celebration is not necessary; it would follow that the woman may have a Husband against her will, and before she consent; and she may have many, or can never know which is he, for the King may chuse her one, and the Priest another, and the Parents a third. So here.
4. And if his Consecration be not necessary to Episcopacy, how will you prove Ordination necessary to the Priesthood? Here I noted,
R. B. that he resolveth the mysteries of their succession and mission, into popular consent.Sect. 5.
To this W. I. saith, that he meaneth it only as the means of knowing it.
Ans. But I enquired of the causes or evidences by which a Bishop may be known from a Usurper, what it is that maketh him a Bishop? as I would know a man from a brute; a Judg, a Physician, a Merchant, from other men. But he durst not come to this, because guilt makes them conscious of their own defect.
But W. I. saith, p. 50, It is sufficient that some generalities of Election be determined jure divino. Ans. Let them be such that I may know a Bishop from a Usurper by, and it is enough.
W. J. As that it he done by Christians, by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Sect. 6.Office, chusing freely occording to the Laws of God; the further determinations are left to the Church, &c.
R. B. Worse still! 1. If the men of York chuse a Bishop of London, or several parties chuse ten Bishops here, they are all chosen by Christians. But that is not enough. What if ten parties chuse ten Popes, ten Kings, ten Bishops, the Christianity of the chusers will not prove them all authorized.
2. Nor will the choosers capacity of knowing the capable prove it. Three or four very wise men may best know who is capable to be a Judg, a Bishop, a Husband, a Tutor, a Physician &c. and yet if they should choose all the Judges, Bishops, Husbands, &c. in the land, the persons chosen by them would be never the more such, than the unchosen.
3. But being conscious that you had said nothing, you put in these words, according to the Sect. 7.Laws of God. But the question is, How shall I know what makes a true Bishop according to the Laws of God? and you skilfully tell me, he must be chosen by knowing Christians according to the Laws of God. He that is not satisfied by you with such talk, let him be unsatisfied.
R. B. I here noted again that by his way none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration (Ordination) or due Election. 2. But that we cannot know their Bishops to be true Bishops, because we cannot know that they have common consent. He answereth:
W. J. No man argues you of the want of succession in your respective Sees because you want Episcopal Consecrations, but because you want Episcopal Election, Confirmation, Vocation, Mission, Sect. 8.Iurisdiction. For your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time (and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes) were intruded by secular power,—the Capitula had the present power of electing the Bishops,—vid. caet.
R. B. 1. It's well we are now quite rid of the old cavil of the Nags-head Consecration: Why was not this confest sooner? Did you well to abuse the people so long?
2. I thought we had nothing to have proved but due Qualifications, due election (or consent) and due Ordination (or Consecration). But here now comes in I know not what and how much more, Confirmation, Vocation, Mission, Iurisdiction. All hard words: Had I put him but to have told us the meaning of these also, what work should I have made him?
1. What is Confirmation without which Qualifications, Election and Ordination make not a true Minister or Bishop? O that we knew it. 2. What is Vocation besides the three aforesaid, and which is necessary ad esse? 3. And what is Mission besides those three, which is also so necessary? 4. And what meaneth he by Iurisdiction that was wanting? was it the Iurisdiction of the Collator, or of the Receiver; not the former, for we never knew that God gave any Jurisdiction to the Clergy, but the Pastoral power of guiding the Churches by the Word and Keys; which is the work of their own office; and the office of the Ordainer is …o ordain; and if he have power to Ordain (or Consecrate) he hath that Jurisdiction which consisteth of that power. If it be the Receivers Jurisdiction that he meaneth, that is the same contradiction. For to ordain one to the Pastoral office, is to give him all the jurisdiction which is part of that office. And for any other jurisdiction we wish Princes would keep it both from the ordainers and the ordained.
But he saith that our Bishops wanted Episcopal Election. Is it come to that, and yet the way of Election all this while made so indifferent? What is Episcop…l Election? not an Election by Bishops, that you affirm not: Not an election to be Bishops; that you deny them not. It is therefore such an Election as is necessary to the being of a Bishop. And what is that? why all that we have been able to extort from you is, That it be done by Christians capable to know fit persons, choosing freely according to the word of God. But what it is that is according to the Word of God, and what measure of consonancy to the Word, and in what points is necessary ad esse, you durst never tell us: And we say that our Bishops were chosen by Christians capable of knowing fit persons. I confess that it is my own judgment that they should have the choice or consent of the people whom they are to oversee (and of the Presbyters where there are any under them) and so thought your own Bishops for above 600 years, even when Gregory 1st. wrote his Epistles: But if you had asserted that, it would do more to unpope and unbishop your Church, than to disprove ours.
But he saith that the Capitula had the power of electing Bishops, and of constituting Parish-Priests in such places as wanted them,
Ans. 1. Suppose they had: you say no particular Electors act is necessary ad esse; and why theirs? 2. But quo jure, by what right could one Dean and Chapter of a City elect an Overseer of many hundred Parish-priests, and many score or hundred thousand souls, without their consent? You dare not say that God gave them that power; and if man did it, what men were they? If you say that they were men that had more power in England than the King. Parliament, and the consenting people, you must prove it. If you lay it on any foreign power, Pope and Council, we will deny their power here and herein. What man doth, man may undo. 3. But indeed your meer Capitular Election is null and contrary to Gods Word, and the ancient custom of the Churches. By Gods Word, the consent of the Flock, and of the ordainers and of the ordained, made a Pastor, Bishop or Presbyter. By the customs of the Churches in the Empire, sometime the greatest neighbour-Bishops assumed the power, and sometimes Councils overtopt them all, and undid what they did, and sometimes the Emperours put in and out as pleased them (as Solomon put out Abiathar.) But always the peoples election or acceptance was necessary. For instance; when Gregory Nazianzene had confuted the Macedonians and Arrians, and encreased the Church at Constantinople, though the Arrian Bishop since Valens time kept the great Church, Gregory had a little one, and was chosen their Bishop by the Orthodox people alone. This was his first title. After that, Peter Bishop of Alexandria made him Bishop quantum in se, or confirmed him; this was his additional title. After this, the same Peter bribed by money, without recalling his former grant, made Maximus (a right seeker of a Bishoprick, as the world hath since gone) bishop in his stead: the people refused the change, and retained Gregory. Afterward Maximus got both Peter and the Egyptian bishops to make him bishop of Constantinople (where was the Pope all this while?) the people still kept close to Gregory. Afterward Theodosius the Emperor (returning from the West) puts Gregory in possession of the great Church, and turneth out the Arrians, and confirmeth him bishop. After this Miletius of Antioch, and a Council at Constantinople, make Gregory bishop. After this more bishops coming in to the Council, got the major vote, and he discerning that they were resolved to depose him, departed, requesting the Emperors leave, as seeing the doleful divisions and contentiousness of the bishops, not otherwise to be quieted; entreating the Emperor to keep them in some unity and peace, lest it should disgrace and ruin the newly reformed Church. And the Council *Or rather the Emperour: For some Bishops put in several names, and the Emperour chose Nectarius an unbaptized man and so no Christian in the Churches judgment.made Nectarius bishop (the Pope in all this never minded). By this one instance you may see how bishops were then made in the greater places; though in lesser, the election of the people and Presbyters, and the ordination of three neighbour-bishops did suffice, according to the ancient rule and custom.
But he saith, That the old bishops were living, and not legally deposed.
Ans. 1. Sub judicelis est; we say they were. 2. Some deserted. 3. An illegal removal of the former, doth not ever nullisie the title of the latter, viz. when the flock consenteth to the change, &c. else what seat is there that hath not had their succession interrupted and corrupted? but none more than Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria; What poysonings, fightings, unjust depositions and schisms, have made way for successions? Is your Papacy therefore null?
But methinks it is a strange novelty that he makes the Capitula to have had the right of chusing (not only the bishops, but) all the Parish-priests: to say nothing of the Patrons or the Sect. 9.Princes power (which I think is as good as the Chapter.) who knoweth not that the bishops and the people did always chuse the Presbyters, and not the Chapters?
But he saith that they were intruded by Seculor Power. Ans. And were not your Popes so ordinarily, till Hildebrand got the better of the Emperor? But we had more than this.
R. B. Your Popes have not the consent of the most of the Christians in the world; nor (for ought you or any man knows) of most in Europe.Sect. 10.
W. J. Of what Christians? such as you and your associates are? We regard that no more than did the ancient holy Popes, not to have bad the consent of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Donatists, Arrians, &c.
R. B. Contempt of most of the body of Christ, is one of the great proofs that you are all the Church: And did not the Donatists say the same before you? And what but the sword doth make your cause to be better than theirs? How easie is it for any Sect to say, We are the only Church of Christ; and though most of the Christian world be against us, we regard them not?
Reader, mark the truth and c…ndor of these men! When we tell them that the Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Iacobites, Georgians, Copties, Abassines, are of the same Church with us (because they have the same Head, and the same essential faith), the Papists (in their talk and writings) tell us, that they are more of their mind than of ours; and that indeed they are not Hereticks, but well-meaning-men. But when we tell them then how two or three parts of the Church is against their Popes pretended universal power, they number all these then with Hereticks, as not to be regarded.
But abundance of their own Writers, yea such as have lived among them at Ierusalem and other parts, do vindicate the generality of these foreign Christians from the charge of Heresie.
2. But doth not the world know, that a man is supposed to be rightful Pope as soon as the Cardinals (an upstart sort of things) have chosen him, before ever any of the people of Europe, even Papists, do consent? But perhaps hee'l say, that the people consent that these shall be the chusers; sure they did not so till Hildebrands days; nor since any otherwise than by silence or non-resistance, where they have no places to speak, nor power to resist, even as the Countrey-men consent to the conquering Armies that oppress them.
R. B. It's few of your own people that know who is Pope (much less are called to consent) till after Sect. 11.he is setled in possession.
W. J. What then? Is not the same in all elective Princes, where the extent of their Dominions is exceeding large?
R. B. 1. I confess when we have an Elective King of all the world, I had rather Cardinals chuse him at Rome, than all the world should meet to chuse him. And if Christ had made us a King or Bishop of all the world, he would have told us who must chuse him, to save the men at the Antipodes their journey.
2. But why pretend you then the peoples consent, when you plead it unnecessary? In Poland, that their Diets chuse their Kings, is from a known reason; it is the Constitution of their Kingdom, which the people agreed to, and chuse many of the chusers. But when did the Universal Church constitute your Cardinals to be the Electors? Or which of the Cardinals are chosen by the Universal Church, or any other than the Pope himself? God made Bishopricks like Corporations, where all may chuse the Mayor: Who made them like great Kingdoms, or set one over all the world (where the people cannot chuse, nor God made any chusers), is the question?
R. B. 4. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted, when against the will of General Councils, and of the far greatest part of Christians, your Popes have kept the seats Sect. 12.by force.
W. J. These are generalities: What Popes? What Councils in particular? Name and prove, if you will he answered.
R. B. What disgraceful ignorance are you forced to pretend? What need I go over your Schisms? What need I name any more than Eugenius the 4th deposed by a great General Council, and two or three parts of the Church disowning your Pope at this day?
R. B. I told him how his instance even about Civil Power failed, seeing the consent of a people Sect. 13.pre-engaged to their Prince, giveth not right to a Usurper.
W. J. The people cannot be supposed to consent freely and lawfully to an usurper, &c.
R. B. Lawfully indeed they cannot, and that's the same thing that I affirmed: you confute me by granting what I say. When the Bishop of Rome hath a lawful election to be Bishop of all the world, we will obey him; and so we will any Prelate or Priest that hath a known lawful election.
R. B. Will any Diocess suffice ad esse? What if it be but in particulor Assemblies?
W. J. It must be more than a Parish, or than one single Congregation, which hath not different inferior Sect. 14.Pastors, and one who is their Superior, &c.
R. B. 1. How ambiguously and fraudulently do you answer? No man can tell by this whether you unbishop all that had but one Parish or Congregation; or only all that had not Presbyters under them? Which ever you mean, it is notoriously false, and a nullifying of the ancient Episcopacy. Ignatim tells you, that in hi… days one Church was known by one Altar, and one Bishop, with the Presbyters and Deacons. And though I think not as Dr. Hamond, that all the first. Bishops in Scripture-times were setled as the sole Pastors of single Congregations, without any Presbyters under them; yet when you consider with whom he agreeth in this, viz. Dionysius Petavius, and what St. Clara saith for it, fathering it on Scotus, we think you should not so far differ from your own Doctors, as to deny all those to be true Bishops of the Scrip…re-times, who they think were the only Bishops. You have a custom of calling the Apostles Bishops, even Peter Bishop of Antioch and Rome; Did not those first Bishops then make all the Presbyters that were under them? Qu. Whether they were no Bishops till they had made those Presbyters? If no, then those first Presbyters had not Episcopal ordination: If yea, then habetur quaesitum.
The truth is, all the ancientest Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches, not near so big as many of our Parishes: I have elsewhere proved this at large. I instanced to him only in Gregory Neoc…sariensis, who was Bishop only of Seventeen souls, when he came thither first. He answereth:
W. J. How know you that there were no more in the Countrey adjacent? 2. Know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians, and make himself a competent Diocess?
R. B. I know the first by the consent of History; that telleth us of the Seventeen in the City over whom he was set, and speaketh of no more in such circumstances as would have occasioned it. 2. And I believe your second: but do not you see that you desert your Cause? and contradict your self? 1. Speak out: Was he the bishop of the Infidels? Were they his Church? Or was he only to convert and gather them to the Church? 2. Was he not a Bishop there (before he had converted any one) to those seventeen alone? You dare deny none of this. Therefore he was a Bishop before he had more Congregations than one, and before he had any Presbyters to govern.
And here you may see how the changes that Popes and their Prelates have made in the Church, constraineth them to defend them by subverting their own foundation. For if those were no Bishops who had but one Congregation, yea and those that had no subject-Presbyters, then the first ages (if not also the second, except in Rome and Alexandria) had no true Bishops, or at least the founders were not such; and their Episcopacy, as they describe it, hath no succession from the Apostles. Truth and Error will never make a close coalition.