[111] See the former series of “Parochial Lectures,” On The Holy Catholic Church, Lecture IV. p. 113, &c. in which I have explained this more fully.
[113] See Lect. I. page 27.
[120] Of course there were some that disputed even in their own days the Power of the Apostles themselves.—See 2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 3 John 10. The Apostles shrank not from asserting their own “POWER which the Lord had given them to edification”—“A Spirit of POWER and of love”—“Not that I have not POWER,”—said St. Paul, (2 Thess. iii. 9.)
[121] The manner in which modern sectarians sometimes profess to recognise “only the kingship and headship of Christ,” affords a striking proof of this; for no one misunderstands them, as some did the Apostles, by supposing them to be establishing a temporal rule. The Apostolic system evidently had that in it, which furnished some apparent ground for such a mistake; and so also the Catholic Church is sometimes charged with “interfering with the State.”
[123] Apost. Can. 37. Ed. Coloniæ, 1538.
[128] See the Homily of our Church, on the Common Prayer and Sacraments. And Notes No. II.
[134a] Called, therefore, “the συναξις” in the early Church.
[134b] A similar principle seems hinted, John vii. 22.
[135] This may perhaps throw some light on Tertullian’s meaning in a passage quoted by Bishop Kaye, (p. 226.) The word “consessus” seems to allude to the expression of our Lord, “where two or three are gathered together;” indeed in the same connexion, he quotes this very text. And I would suggest, that Tertullian’s argument in this place, however ill expressed, may perhaps imply, and certainly requires no more than is stated above, viz. that the Sacerdotal grace was primarily or essentially in the Church, and not originally in the persons of any individuals as such.
[137] See Notes, No. V.