Skip to main content

'We are Christ's Vicars': Jeremy Taylor against the papal supremacy

On this eve of Saint Peter's Day, words from Jeremy Taylor on how the papal supremacy undermines and subverts the apostolic episcopal constitution of the Church catholic:

When Christ founded his Church, he left it in the hands of his Apostles, without any prerogative given to one, or eminency above the rest, save only of priority and orderly precedency, which of itself was natural, necessary and incident. The Apostles govern'd all; their Authority was the sanction, and their Decrees and Writings were the Laws of the Church. They exercis'd a common jurisdiction, and divided it according to the needs and emergencies, and circumstances of the Church. In the Council of Jerusalem, S. Peter gave not the decisive sentence, but S. James, who was the Bishop of that See. Christ sent all his Apostles as his Father sent him; and therefore he gave to every one of them the whole power which he left behind; and to the Bishops congregated at Miletum, S. Paul gave them caution to take care of the whole flock of God, and affirms to them all, that "the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops": and in the whole New Testament, there is no act or sign of superiority, or that one Apostle exercised power over another: but to them whom Christ sent, he in common intrusted the Church of God: according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian, "The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power: and they are all shepherds, and the flock is one" and therefore it ought to be fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent.

This unity and identity of power without question and interruption did continue and descend to Bishops in the primitive Church, in which it was a known doctrine that the Bishops were successors of the Apostles: and what was not in the beginning, could not be in the descent, unless it were innovated and introduc'd by a new authority. Christ gave ordinary power to none but the Apostles, and the power being to continue for ever in the Church, it was to be succeeded to, and by the same authority, even of Christ, it descended to them who were their successors, that is, to the Bishops, as all antiquity does consent and teach: Not S. Peter alone, but every Apostle, and therefore every one who succeeds them in their ordinary power, may and must remember the words of S. Paul; We are Ambassadors or Legates for Christ: Christ's Vicars, not the Pope's Delegates: and so all the Apostles are called in the Preface of the Mass; Quos operis tui Vicarios cidem contulisti praeesse Pastores; they are Pastors of the Flock and Vicars of Christ; and so also they are in express terms called by S. Ambrose, and therefore it is a strange usurpation, that the Pope arrogates that to himself by Impropriation, which is common to him with all the Bishops of Christendom.

The consequent of this is, that by the law of Christ, one Bishop is not superior to another: Christ gave the power to all alike; he made no Head of the Bishops; he gave to none a supremacy of power or universality of jurisdiction. But this the Pope hath long challenged, and to bring his purposes to pass, hath for these Six hundred years by-gone invaded the rights of Bishops.

From A Dissuasive from Popery, Part I, Chpt. 1.X.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...