Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1

C

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Chriftian Princes in Wifdom and Difcretion never fent for all the Presbyters of the "World to any General Council, but only for the chiefeft of every principal Church or City, or for fome to be fent from every Realm far diftant, as Legats in the names of the reft, and by that means they had the Confent of the whole World to the Decrees of their Councils, tho' not the Perfonal Appearance of all the Paftors and Presbyters that were in the World. So to the Council of Nice the first Christian Emperor fent for by his Letters not all the Preachers and Presbyters of the World, but the Bishops of every Place, and there came from all the Churches through Europe, Afia, and Africa, the best (or (c) Socrat Lib 1. chiefeft) of the Minifters of God, as (c) Socrates fays; each Country fending not all their Bifhops (for then would they far have exceeded the number of 318) but the most special and felected Men they had; and tho' there were prefent an infinite number of Presbyters and Deacons, that came with the Bishops; yet the Council confifted of 318 Bishops and no more, by reafon the Emperor fent not for the Presbyters of each Place, but for the Bihops. The like Examples are to be feen in the three General Councils that followed, where only Bifhops determined matters in Question; And the Presbyters that Subfcribed in the Councils of Conftantinople and Chalredon fupplied the places of Bishops as their Legats or Subftitutes, which in the (d) Coun cil of Chalcedon is more fully expreffed.

cap. 8.

(d) Vid. Subfcript. Epife in Concil. Chalced. Act. 1.3.6.16.

'

[ocr errors]

The only Objection I can think of which remains yet unanswered is, That if Presbyters had this Right in the ancient Provincial Synods, how

came

came they to loose it so universally that it should be retained in. no other Epifcopal Church in the World but our own? To which it may be answered, that Presbyters had originally another Right which is as much or more universally loft than their Right in Provincial Synods, for it has been loft or at least difufed even in this Realm as well as all other Epifcopal Churches (in this Western part of Christendom at leaft) for many Ages: And that is their Right to fit and judge together with their own Bishop in Chapters, or in Diocefan Synods, as (a) I have already, (4) Supi. ch. 6. I truft, fully and clearly proved by undeniable Teftimonies. And Provincial Synods Iconccive to have been no other than an Union of feveral Diocefan Synods into one Body: The Bishop as the chief Spiritual Governour of his Diocese and the Head of the College of Presbyters had a moft undoubted Right to be prefent in every Provincial Synod, either by him-felf or his Legate, but fhould all the Clergy of each Diocese have been every one admitted to fit and Vote in the Provincial Synod, they would have been fuch a Multitude as must have confounded the Affembly: And therefore only fuch as had a Perfonal Jurifdiction or Prefidency, as the Deans or Archipresbyters and Archdeacons were admitted to be there Perfonally; but the Chapters and Diocefan Clergy were reprefented by their Chofen Proctors. And this was done to prevent Confufion or Tumult from a too numerous Aflembly. But as the Bishops began to act alone in matters of Judicature within their refpective Diocefes, and to lay afide the ufe of their Chapters and Diocefan Synods in thofe Matters, fo by Degrees they began to lay afide the convening of A a 2

Presby

Presbyters or at leaft the admitting them to Decisive Votes in Provincial Synods. But our Presbyters being called to Provincial Synods in order to give their Money there, did alfo by Degrees regain their ancient Right to a Decifive Vote in all Synodical Matters. For it is evident that Presbyters had originally a greater fhare in the Government of the Church than has been allowed them for many Ages, and that even in the fourth Century or before (a) Vindic. Ignat. their Authority began to be Diminished: (a)

Par. 2. c. 16.

p. 428.

P. 53.

And Bishop Pearfon urges it as a Reafon or Argument for the Genuineness of Ignatius's Epiftles, and a fubftantial Proof that they were not Forged in the fourth Century or later, because the Power and Privileges of Presbyteries was not fo great in thofe Ages as the preceeding. No body, fays he, in those late Ages of the Church would have heaped fuch Praifes on the Presbytery, or armed it with fuch Authority, whofe Power at that time even at Alexandria, where it moft flourished, was fo much diminished.

Befides it is not true that ours is the only Epifcopal Church wherein Presbyters are allowed to have Decisive Votes in Provincial Synods. For (b) Notit. Eccles. to this Day (b) Cabaffutius obferves that the Provincial Synod of the Bishop of Rome confifts of Bifhops, Priests and Deacons, as from the beginning. It is true, it is not now called the Provincial Synod, (tho' it really be no other) but the Conclave or College of Cardinals, a Title confirmed to all thofe that compofe this Affembly by Pope Innocent 4, who dignified them with the Purple. Now all these are no other than the Bishops, Priefts and Deacons of the Urbicane Province or Province immediately fubject to the Bishop of Rome as their proper Metropolitan. And notwithstanding

withstanding many of thefe Cardinals are Foreigners, and live and poflefs Bifhopricks in remote Countries, yet upon their being made Cardinals, they are at least titularly Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons of fome Church within the Roman Province. And by these Titles only were they diftinguished (a) till the time of Leo() Hift. of the 10. about 200 years ago, who when he was Family of Cardinal (being exceeding proud of his Family) Medici. would not be called Cardinal by his Title, but by his name de Medicis, whofe Example the reft have fince followed. For before that time, even our Cardinals in England were called by their Titles at Rome, as particularly Cardinal Kemp (whom I choose to [name in Gratitude, as Founder of the Church wherein my Forefathers and my Children have been Baptized, and of the School where they and my felf have had our Education) when he was Enthroned at Canterbury, A. D. 1452. was Saluted by the Prior and Monks by the Appellation of (b) our Holy Father Cardinal of St. Ruf(6) Antiq. Brifin (which was his Title) and Archhishop of tan. p. 299. Canterbury. They have all thefe Titles ftill, tho' they are now commonly called by their Family Names. So that if it be asked (as it has been) where Presbyters have a Power in Provincial Synods in any Epifcopal Church like to what is allowed them in this Realm fo as to have a Negative Voice upon their Bishops? We may answer that they have it in the Church of Rome it felf, where the Cardinals have all an equal Vote, which is more than our Pres byters Claim, for our Bishops are not a fifth part of the number our Presbyters are in Convocation, yet all the Presbyters, be they never fo unanimous cannot carry any thing against

A a 3

the

the Will of the Bishops, nor is it fit they should: But in the Conclave, tho' all the Cardinal BiShops be never fo unanimous the Cardinal Priests and Deacons may carry any thing against them. At Rome therefore there is an Epifcopal Church wherein the Presbyters and Deacons claim and exercise even a greater Power than our Presbyters ever challenged in their Provincial Synods. It is true thefe Cardinals are most of them BiShops, however they fit not in the Conclave as fuch (except they be Cardinal Bishops) but as Priefts or Deacons of the Church of Rome. And for this Reafon I cannot but wonder that the Romish Crew (as Bishop Bilfon calls them) should fo generally exclude Presbyters from this Right in Provincial Synods, whereas it is still maintained (and I conceive has been fo from the beginning) in that which they look upon as their Mother Church and the Center of their Unity.

From what has been faid I think we may very reasonably conclude that the Right of Presbyters to have Authoritative Decisive Votes in Provincial Synods, is no new Right wholly unknown to the Primitive Church and all other Epifcopal Churches as fome have pretended: But that it is a Right which Presbyters did enjoy in the Apostles Days and fome following Centuries. And therefore tho' in other Epifcopal Churches it be now generally loft and antiquated, yet it ought to be esteemed a particular happiness of this Church that it has been preserved here: And thefe Presbyters who are defirous to have this Right continued ought not to be treated as Presbyterians or Enemies to Epifcopacy merely because they are Zealous to preferve the ancient and undoubted Synodical Rights of Presbyters.

And

« ZurückWeiter »