726. in Margine Epâ—st 4. Lib. 3. c. 11. Heb. 13.17 De Repub. 1. In cap. 3. Gal. Gal. 3.24 Gal. 3.22 1 Cor. 2.7 Plato lib. 5. de leg Demosth. contra Timocratem Plutar. in Solon Curius Fortunatianus Rhet. Nemo obligatur ad impossibile Lib. 1. Dial. adv Pelag. Rom. 8. S. Hier. lib. 2. in Gal. c. 3. Rhet. lib. 1. Seneca Ep. 67. Haeres 59. ‖ Zabuli S. Cypr. de oper eleâ—mos In cap. 7. Rom. Carm. de ingratis c. 9. Epist. ad Innocent * Lib. 2. de merit remiss c. 6. lib. de Spirit lit c. 1. ‖ Serm. 49. de tempore Lib. 1. dial adv Pelag. Dial. extr adv Pelag. l. 3 S. August lib. 1. Retract c. 19. Heb. 10.28 Rom. 8.3 Apud Diodor Sicul. Hem. 3. inter 19. In epistolâ ad Innocentium dictum est multos Catholicos viros dixisse posse hominem esse sine peccato per gratiam Dei non à nativitate sed à conversione Mat. 5.48 Psal. 2. Heb. 7.19 Jam. 1.4 Col. 4.12 1.28 1 Cor. 14.20 Heb. 6.1 Mat. 19.21 Seneca Luke 6.36 Scriptor ad Diâ—gnetum 1 Kings 8.46 Psal. 37.29 vet edit Phil. 1.10 1 Chron. 12.33 Acts 3.26 2. Pet 3.11 Vers. 14. Vers. 9. Heb. 10.28 29. Horat. Serm. l. 1. Satyr Phil. 3.13 14. Luke 17.7 John 6.28 29. Luke 12.37 Luke 12. Mat. 22.37 Clem. Alâ—x Strom. 5. Plautus Stichâ— De spir lit c. 36. Epist. ad lapsos Concil Arausic 2. c. 18. Debetur mercâ—s boâ—iâ— operibus sed gratia qua non debetur praecedit ut fiant Job 35.7 Rom. 8.18 Psal. 62.12 Mat. 5.12 1 Cor. 3.8 Mat. 16.27 2 Cor. 4.17 2 Thes. 1.5 Apâ—â— 3.4 16.6 Rom. 8.18 In Matth. lib. 3. cap. 20. v. 8. 2 Cor. 8.12 Gen. 2.17 Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 Deut. 27.8 Deut. 28. Lev. 26.23 24 c. Heb. 10.28 Rom. 3. vers 24 25 26 27 28. Rom. 8.1 14 26 27 28. Ver. 33 c. Heb. 8.10 11 12. 2 Cor. 5.17 18 19 20 21. Acts. 2.37 38. Rom. 10.13 Acts 2.21 Rom. 10.5 6 8 9. 1 Cor. 15.55 56. Rom. 8.3 4. 1 Joh. 5.3 Rom. 5.10 Phil. 4·13 2 Cor. 12.9 Matth. 7.7 2 Cor. 7.1 Vide etiam Isa. 49.6 53.12 Psal. 22.23 24 25 26 27 28. Jer. 32.34 * 21.32 Matth. 27.3 Heb. 12.17 Lib. de poenit 2 Cor. 7.11 Homil. 9. de poenit Lib. 2. adv Marcion cap. 20. Matth. 21.29 Prov. 14. Auâ—on Epigr. * Malè Metanoea usus est verbum purum Gracum est nec tamen eo sensu definitione à Graecis usurpatum Rectè igitur faceâ—è fâ—ssus est idâ—m Ausonius in Epigrammate de abusu hujus verbi parusa Latini Sum Dea cui nomen nec Cicero ipse dedit * Heb. 6.1 1 Kings 8.35 Isai. 59.20 2 Chron. 7.14 Jer. 18.7 8 9. 31.19 2 Tim. 2.19 ‖ 2 Sam. 12.5 13. Deut. 30.2 Jer. 3.7 Acts 26.18 Eph. 5.14 Ezek. 33.12 Luke 19.8 9 10. * De poenit in princip ‖ Lib. de ver fals poenit c. 8. * Lib. 6. Divin instit c. 13. Lib. 3. de myste Eccles. Solil cap. 19. Lib. 6. c. 24. In Pythag. Hieâ—ocl in vers 29. pag. 166. Edit Lond. 1654. Noct. Att. lib. 17. c. 1. Acts 26.18 20 Mat. 3.8 Acts 26.20 James 4. Jer. 31.19 Acts 5.31 Gal. 3.23 Verse 2. Acts 20.21 2 Pet. 3.9 15. John 5.44 Strom. 2. * Mark 1.15 ‖ Acts 26.20.2.38.3.19 Acts 14.15 26.18 2 Cor. 3.16 Rom. 13.12 13 Eph. 5.8 Tit. 2.14 Acts 3.26 Luke 22.32 Jam. 3.20 Mat. 13.15 John 12.40 Col. 1.21 22 Tit. 3.5 Rom. 12.2 Eph. 4.23 Eph. 2.10.3.9 John 36. Jam. 1.18 Jude Rev. 7.14 Heb. 10.22 23 Psal. 50.9 2 Cor 7.1 1 John 3.3 Gal. 2.20 Rom. 6.17 Acts 6.7 1 Pet. 4.3 Eph. 2.3 Jam. 1.22 23. 1 John 3.22 John 3.4 1 John 1.6 2 Cor. 8.21 Col. 1.10 1 Cor. 15 58. 2 Tim. 3.12 Gal. 2.20 1 Cor. 2.1 1 Thess. 1.6 John 2.6 Eph. 2.10 Mat. 5.19 Luke 5.46 John 15.14 Ignat. ad Magnis 1 Kings 8.35 36. Isa. 59.20 21. Ezek. 33.14 15 16. Rom. 6.6 11 12 13 18 19. Rom. 7.4 5 6. Rom. 13.11 12 13. 2 Cor. 7.1 10 11. 2 Cor. 5.15 17 Ephes. 4.22 23 24. Eph. 5.6 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17. Col. 3.1 2 3 5 8 9 10. Tit. 2.11 12 13 14. Heb. 12.1 2 14 15. Jam. 1.18 21 22. 2 Pet. 1.4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 Pet. 1.13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 2.24 Mat. 5.19 Luke 6.46 John 15.14 Rom. 12.1 2. Rom. 2.6 7 8 9 10. 1 Cor. 7.19 1 Cor. 18.58 Gal. 6.15 Gal. 5.6 Eph. 2.10 Phil. 1.9 10 11 1 Thess. 4.1 2 3 1 Thess. 2.11 12 13. Heâ— 9.4 5 9. Heb. 10.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 1 Pet. 4.17 1 John 3.3 22 Apoc. 2.26 Eph. 3.14 c. Col. 1.9 c. 1 Thess. 3.11 12 Heb. 13.20 21. Lib. 1. de amiss gratiae cap. 13. Sect. alterum est Horat. Serm. l. 1. Sat. 3. Mat. 23.24 Luke 6.41 * Ira festuca est odium verò trabs Aug. Lib. 3.22 Epigr. Mart. Nihil invenies rectius recto non magis quà m verius vero quà m temperato temperatius omnis in modo est virtus modus certa mensura est Coâ—stantia non habet quò procedat non magis quà m siducia aut veritas aut fides Sen. Ep. 67. * In regul brevior * Venialia peccata ex consensu omnium Theologorum neque tollunt neque minuunt habitum charitatis sed solum actum fervorem ejus impediunt Bellarm de amiss grat c. 13. Sect. alterum est ‖ Idem ib. cap. 11. Sect. Quartum argum Offic. lib. â— In resp ad orthod apud Justin. De amiss grat cap. 12. Sect. Restat ultim Paâ—uvius Homil. 35. in Lucam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 4. de orthod â— de cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5.18 Eph. 2.1 Lib. 3. quaest super Levit. q. 20. Rom. 7.5 In cap. 2. Ephes. Jam. 1.15 Vid. Com. DD. in Titum verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Apol. de liber arbit Lib. 13. c. 19. De amiss grat cap. 11. Sect. Assumptio probatur Lib. 3. quaest super Levit. q. 20. * Parad. 3. Lib. 3. Quaest. in Lev. c. 20. Lib. 50. homil hom 50.7 Serm. 244. de temp â—nchiâ— c. 78. Dial. 2. adv Pelag. Homil. 8. 13 De praecept Dispens c. 14. Matth. 5.22 * Ita interpretantur hunc locum Barradius Maldonatus Estius ad hunc locum apud vetustiores eadem sententia praevaluit Hac enim erat mens Strabi Fuldensis qui glossam ordinariam compilavit Hugonis Cardinalis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Aquinaâ— 1.2 quaest 87. art 5. (b) Bellar. de amiss gra lib. 1. c. 14. Sect. Extuâ— ad Serm. 1. de coenâ Dom. Serm. 1. de convers Paulâ— Lib. 10. Moral c. 14. In Paraâ— * Fornicator Promiscuè sapius usurpantur fornicatio
Anathemate * Humani juris naturalis potestatis unicuique quod paâ—averit colere Sed nec religioniâ— est cogere religionem quae suscipâ— spontâ— debet non vi Tertul. ad Scapulam * Dextera praecipuè capit indulgentia mentes Asperitas odium saevaque bella â—arâ—â— * Exstat prudens monitum Mecaenatis apud Dionem Cassium ad â—ugustum in haec verba Fos vero qui in Divinis aliquid innovant odio habe coerce non deorum solùm causâ sed quia nova numina hi tales introducentes multos impellunt ad mutationem rerum unde conjurationes seditiones Conciliabula exsistunt res profecto minimè conducibiles principatui Et legibus quoque expressum est quod in religionem committitur in omnium fertur injuriam Serm. 10. de verb. Apost Resp. ad Orthodoxos Act. 2.38 39. In Rom. 6. tom 2 pag. 543. Serm. 10. de verb. Apost c. 2.4 Instit. cap. 16. sect 8. L. 3. Epist. 8. ad Fidum John 4.53 In comâ—â—nd Can. 〈◊〉 4. De rebus Eccles. c. 26. Quidni necesse esâ— sic legit Franc Junius in notis ad Tertul. sponsores etiam periculo ingeri qui ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possint proventu malae indolis falli Tertul lib. de Baptis cap. 18. Lib. de Baptis prope finem cap. 18. Itaque pro personae cujusque conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior est praecipuè tamen circa parvulos Fiant Christiani cum Christum nôsse potuerint * Orat. 40. quaest in S. Baptisma Mark 16.16 Rom. 6.3 vers 4. vers 5. vers 6. 1 Pet. 3.21 Vide Erasmum in prâ—faâ— ad Annotat in Matth. Exod. 13. John 6.53 * Et in Serm. ad Infantes apud V. Bedam â—n 1. Cor. 10. John 6.63 See the disc of the Real presence Section 3. 2 Chro. 15.13 Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. 1 Cor. 12.9 10. 1 Cor. 15 23. 2 Cor. 13.14 1 Cor. 12.13 1 Cor. 12.13 * See the Great Exemplar part 1. disc of Baptism numb 8 9 10. * Disc. of Baptism of Infants versus finem in the Great Exemplar part 1. p. 202 c. Matth. 9.28 Mar. 9.23 Mat. 8.13 Joh. 4.50 Gal. 3.27 Eph. 4.24 L. 7. Strom. Cicero de senectute Act. 18.14 2 Tim. 1.18 De corona milit c. 3. de monogam c. 10. * Ep. 66. Deut. 13. Cap. 11. Vid. Pacian Epist. ad Sempron 2. L. 2. c. 95. contra liter â—etilian Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 26. Aquin. 2.2 q. 37. a. 1. ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Miraculis S. Benedict l. 1. c. 1.14 De Divin Offic. l. 5. c. 17. * Vindic. Ecclesiast Hierarch per Franc. Halâ—â—er Cap. 9. De fide operibus De Sacram. disp 3. q. uniâ— punct 3.2 Lib. 3. De sacram * 1 John 2.8 Catechâ—s 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tract 80. in Joan. S. Hilar. can 4. in â—ine In 〈◊〉 Ibid. Homil. 4. John 3.5 S. Clem. Ep. 4. Constit. Apost Ad Stephanum * Homil. in Dominic prim post Ascens ‖ Epist. 108. ad Seleucianum * L. c. 27. John 7.39 Chap. 7. v. 38. * Qu. 9. ad Heditiam ‖ In Joan. tract 22. Mark 16.16 John 6. In Offic. Sab. Pasch. post orat quae dicitur Data confirm De Offa. divin in Sabb. â— Pasch. Seneca Allâ— 8. v. 14 15 16 17. Ad Jubaian Epist. 1. c. 3. Adv. Luciferiâ—n Heb. 6.1 2. Symbol Nican C P. 2 Pet. 1.9 In hunc locum John 3.5 Acts 2.38 V. 39. Ephes. 1.13 * Acts 19.6 Lib. 2. cap. 57. 1 Cor. 12.29 Acts 6.8 1 Cor. 12.7 In Matthaum Tract 6. in Canonicam Joan. circa med lib. 3. cont Donatist c. 6. Mark 16.17 A.D. 170. A. D. 200. De Baptismo c. 6. De Resur carn cap. 8. Vbi suprà de Bapt. De Praescripâ— cap. 36. A. D. 250. Epist. 73. Epist. 70. 73. A.D. 200. Apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 17. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A.D. 210. De Eccles. Hier. c. 2. Et cap. 4. A. D. 260. * Lib. 6. Hist. Ecclesâ— 43. Lib. 6. cap. 3. A. D. 320. A. D. 370. Adhort ad S. lavacrum In cap. 1. ad Ephes. Dial. adv Lucifer Homil 18. in Act. Lib. 3. De Sacram c. 2. In Hebr. 6. Lib. 3. cont Nâ—vat Can. 38. Can. â—od Habitur apud Gratian. de Consecrat dist 5. cap. jejun Cap. 8. Can. 17. Can. 7. Homil. 18. in â—cta * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. 5. Eccles. Hier. In Heb. 6. Q. 44. in N. T. * Contr. Parmen lib. 7 Epist. ad Episc. Hispan Voluit Deus dona illa admiranda non contingerâ— Baptizatiâ— nisi per manus Apostoloâ—um ut Authoritatem testibus suâ— conciliarâ—â— quâ—in maximam quod ipsum simul ad retinendam Ecclesiae unitatem pertinâ—bat Groâ—ius Videtur 〈◊〉 â—uisse peculiarâ— Apostolâ—rum munus dare Spiritum Sanctum Isidoâ— Clarius in 8. Aâ—tuum Apostolorum * In Eph. 4. De Offic. Eccles. cap. 27. â— Qu. 1. cap. Qui vult 1. 2 Epist. 2. de Episc ordinanâ—â— 1. Qu. 2. C. 〈◊〉 mulâ—â— Clenem de 〈◊〉 â—ap â—n plâ—â—is que Qu. V. N.T. Qu. 101. Lib. 2. cont liâ—er Petiliani c. 104. Eccles. hier cap. 2. Can. 48. S. Hieron adv Lucifer antâ—â—ued Cap. 1. De instit Câ—oric l. 1. c. 30. Heb. 6.2 Palag l. 3. c. 11 Heb. 7.7 Hookeâ— Eccl. Pol lib. 5. Sect 66. A.D. 400. Catech. Myst. â— 3. Synâ—dus 〈…〉 ap d 〈…〉 Eccl. Gal. 〈◊〉 5. Lib. de Spir. S. cap. 17. Part. 3. qu. 72. art 6. ad prim Epist. 54. In oâ— usâ— auâ— de Confirmat John 7.38 Rom. 6.17 V. 18. Serm. de Pentecoste Habitur apud Gratian. de consecrat dist 5. c. Spiritus S. Tertul. advers Marcion l. 1. car c. 3. Homil. 18. in Acta Comment in Cantic c. 1 2. In Adhort ad Baptis Apud Euseb. 1 Cor. 12.7 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Lib. 4. de Fide cap. 10. * Cap. 4. part 3. De 〈…〉 Epist. â—d Episâ— Hispâ—n Oâ—do Rom cap. de Dâ—â— Sabbaâ—â— S. Pasâ—h Alâ—um De devin offic â— 19. Vide Cassaâ— dâ—um Schol. ad Hym. 〈◊〉 De consecrat dist 5. c. ut jejuni A. D. 967. Consultationis cap. 9. Serm. 116. in ramâ— Palmarum De lib. Ecclesiast c. 26. Luke 4.32 Acts 13.12 * Orat. de Baptism ‖ In Psal 68. De exterminaâ— Schism Lib. 3. de Bapt. c. 16. Lib. 3. Haeret. Fabul Cyril Hieros in Prâ—catech Apud Gratian. de Consecrat dist 5. cap. Dictum est cap. De homine Concil Toletan 8. can 7. Heb. 6.6 Zonar in Can. Laodicen 48. * innovatum Orat. in Sanctum lava crum Lib. 2. contra lit Peâ—il c. 104 Martial l. 8. Ep. 18. Prov. 27.10 * Vt praestem Pyladen aliquis mihi praestet Oresten Hoc non fit verbis Marce ut ameris ama Mar. l. 6. Ep. 11. * Extra fortunam est quicquid donatur amisis Quas dederis solus semper habebis opes Mart. l. 5. ep 43. Est tamen hoc vitium sed non leve sit licèt unum Quòd colit ingrataâ— pauper amiciâ—ias Quis largitur opes veteri fidóque sodali ep 19. ‖ Non bellè quaedam faciunt duo sufficit unus Huic operiâ— si visut loquar ipse tase Crede mihi quamvis ingentia Posthume dones Authoris pereunt garrulitate sui ep 53. De potest Eccles cons. 12. Ethic. definit 26.
Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him vers 9. And when 1 James 2 Cephas and 3 John c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Circumcision as is to be seen Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwayes resident and his seat fixt and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians But of this hereafter 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians I have sent unto you Epaphroditus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Compeer and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is we are told by Theodoret dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them saith Saint Hierom upon the same place and it is very observable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Jesus Christ but those other men which were Bishops of Churches and called Apostles by Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Churches or sometime Apostles alone but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but James the Lord Brother Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost but by Humane constitution and imposition of hands in relation to that part of his Office and his cure of the uncircumcision he limits his Apostolate to his Diocess and calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle of the Gentiles as Saint Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearly was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi Paulatim verò tempore procedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So Saint Jerome In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen were ordained Apostles and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance adding also that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopal sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolick ordination they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter Titus was Bishop of Crete and Epaphroditus of Philippi and these were the Apostles for Titus came with the Corinthian Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches to wit whose alms they carried but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches viz. of their own of which they were Bishops For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches yet Saint Paul not those Churches sent them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches not going from Corinth with the money but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem If any inquire of Titus or the Brethren they are the Apostles of the Church and the glory of Christ. So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity So that it is plain that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried and they having Churches of their own as Titus had Crete Epaphroditus had Philippi their Apostolate was a fixt residence and superintendency of their several Churches SECT V. And Office BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hath found them liars This Angel of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or Gaius the first a Disciple the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles and either of them knew them well enough it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons and counterfeit himself Saint Paul or Saint Peter And if they had yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead and he known to live in Paâ—mos known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles must dissemble an ordinary function not an extraordinary person And indeed by the concurse of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man Saint John chiefly pointed at For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd and Timothy a long while possess'd of it and perhaps Gaius after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that Saint John had not constituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination obtruding himself upon the
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
The instances of this are just so many as there are Councils S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith Si judicium Episcoporum est saith he quid cum eo commune habet Imperator It is a judgment to be passed by Bishops meaning the determination of the article and not proper for the Emperor And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting President in a Council Quis enim videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Episcoporum non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis He that sits President makes himself chief of the Bishops c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councils and to make decision And therefore conventus Episcoporum and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General and Provincial Councils Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur said the 38 Canon of the Apostles and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter Ob quam causam saith Eusebius conventus Episcoporum Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur Where by the way it is observable that at first even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops and Presbyters had no interest in the decision however we have of late sate so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this To them I leave it And because the four general Councils are the Precedents and chief of all the rest I shall only instance in them for this particular 1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons for if they had been more the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mystical number Nam Abraham trecentos decem octo duxit ad bellum De Conciliis id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem octo Sacerdotes velut trophaeum extulerunt ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum quod eodem numero in Conciliis fidei habemus oraculum quo in historiâ pietatis exemplum Well! 318 was the Number of the Judges the Nicene Fathers and they were all Bishops for so is the title of the subscriptions Subscripserunt trecenti decem octo Episcopi qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt 13 whereof were Chorespiscopi but not one Presbyter save only that Vitus and Vincentius subscribed as Legates of the Bishop of Rome but not by their own authority 2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the title of the Canons The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in G. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking Imperator saith he nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium Episcoporum convocat Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader and about some four or five more * This only amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus Auxanon Helladius and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies They were Bishops saith the title of the Council and the Oration and the Canons and Socrates And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae because before Johannes Apameensis subscribed which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop and the other but a Presbyter indeed without a subterfuge of modesty the titles distinguish them For John was Bishop in the Province of Caelo Syria and Auxanon of Apamâ—a in Pisidia 3. The third was the Council of Ephesus Episcoporum plurium quà m ducentorum as it is often said in the acts of the Council of above 200 Bishops but no Presbyters for Cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops saith the Council and Theodosius junior in his Epistle to the Synod Illicitum est saith he eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be interess'd in Ecclesiastical assemblies 4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia But in all these assemblies no meer Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop and delegation of authority And therefore when in this Council some Laicks and some Monks and some Clergie-men not Bishops would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force Si praeter nostram evocationem aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur Who come without command of the Empress or the Bishops permission Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist to dispute and to be present in all the action And thus they often did suffer Abbots or Archimandrites to be there and to subscribe too but that was praeter regulam and by indulgence only and condescension For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered Non suum esse sed Episcoporum tantum subscribere It belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Councils For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council Mitte foras superfluos Concilium Episcoporum est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Council we know savour'd too much of the Schismatick but before this Council no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenical or Provincial Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenical nor Provincial but meerly the Convocation of a Diocess For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more than a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seventh Canon of that assembly Vt in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent that was their summons Et in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention the greatest of
be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for Saint Leo put in again That by these offices of holy attonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another Argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick Doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme Heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word but have left the whole fabrick of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great Authorities only one of them striving to find some fault sayes that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the Doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own Authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this Decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that Opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the Opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Vndequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of Antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he sayes that Pope Benedict the Eleventh affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the Decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the Acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the Decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the Doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors care not what they say insomuch that Saint Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the House of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this Opinion But that the present Doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new Article of Faith is therefore certain because it was no Article of Faith in Saint Austin's time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of Saint Austin The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. Chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best Armour in which they trusted and expounds the words of Saint Paul He shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which Saint Austin sayes is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to be so or it may never be found but lie hid then words signifie nothing yea but the doubting of Saint Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory but to the manner of the particular punishment viz. Whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames sayes E. W. A goodly excuse as if Saint Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their Springs or Fish-ponds to cool their tongues but Saint Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them and money in their purses This is too pitiful and strain'd an Answer the case being so evidently clear that the thing Saint Austin doubted of was since there was to some of the faithful who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons a Purgatory in this world even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd and therefore being lost so grieved for whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death that is whether besides the punishment suffered here they should not be punish'd after death how by grieving for the loss
Article of Transubstantiation All those words are true in a very good sence and they are in that sence believ'd in the Church of England but that the bread is no more bread in the Natural sence and that it is naturally nothing but the natural body of Christ that the substance of one is passed into the substance of the other this is not affirmed by the Fathers neither can it be inferred from the former propositions if they had been truly alledged and therefore all that is for nothing and must be intended only to cosen and amuse the Reader that understands not all the windings of this labyrinth In the next place I am to give an account of what passed in the Lateran Council upon this Article For says E. W. the doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitely declared in the Lateran Council But in the Dissuasive it was said that it was but pretended to be determined in that Council where many things indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed Nothing says Platina that is says my Adversary nothing concerning the holy land and the aids to be raised for it but for all this there might be a decree concerning Transubstantiation To this I reply that it is as true that nothing was done in this question as that nothing was done in the matter of the Holy War for one was as much decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. â—anon alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burthensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decreed those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the Book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited LX. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Lancton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determined in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretick in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council and how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of
suppose a man to be gone a great way from God before he can presumptuously or wilfully commit any of them such as are idolatry wilful murder adultery witchcraft perjury sacriledge and the like such which by reason of their evil effect are called peccata clamantia ad Dominum crying sins as oppressing widows entring into the fields of the fatherless killing a man by false accusation grinding the face of the poor some sort of unnatual lusts or such which by reason of their scandal and severe prohibitions of them and their proper baseness and unholiness are peccata vastantia conscientiam they lay a mans conscience waste such are all these that I have now reckoned Now concerning every one of these there is amongst wise and good men no question but every act of them is exclusive of a man from all his hopes of Heaven unless he repent timely and effectually For every act of these is such as a man cannot be surprised in the commission of it he can have no ignorance no necessity no infirmity to lessen or excuse his fault which because it is very mischievous in the event expresly and severely and by name forbidden is also against holiness and against charity against God and against the Commandment so apparently that there is nothing to lessen them into the neighbourhood of an excuse if he that commits them have a clear use of reason Some acts of other sins are such which as they are innocent of doing mischief to our neighbour so they are forbidden only in general but concerning the particular there is not any express certainty as in drunkenness which though every Christian knows to be forbidden yet concerning every particular act it is not always so certain that it is drunkenness because the acts partake of more and less which is not true in murder in adultery apostasie witchcraft and the like Besides which in some of the forbidden instances there are some degrees of surprise even when there are some degrees of presumption and deliberation which in others there cannot be Upon which considerations it is apparent that the single acts of these greater sins are equal to a habit in others and are for the present destructive of the state of Gods favour a man that does them is in the state of damnation till he hath repented that is no good man can do one of these acts and be a good man still he is a wicked person and an enemy of God if he does 24. II. This is apparent in those acts which can be done but once as in parricide or murdering our Father or Mother and in the wilful murder of our self There can be no habit of these sins all their malignity is spent in one act and the event is best declared by one of them the man dies in his sin in that sin which excludes him from Heaven Every act of these sins is like the stinging of Bees animámque in vulnere ponunt He cannot strike again he can sin that sin over no more and therefore it is a single act that damns in that case Now though it is by accident that these sins can be but once acted yet it is not by accident that these single acts destroy the soul but by their malice and evil effect their mischief or uncharitableness it follows therefore that it is so in all the single acts of these great crimes for since they that cannot be habitual yet are highly damnable the evil sentence is upon every act of these greater crimes 25. III. Concerning the single acts of other sins which are not so highly criminal yet have a name in the Catalogues of condemn'd sins the sentence in Scripture is the same the penalty extreme the fine is the whole interest S. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians seem only to condemn the habit Thieves drunkards covetous railers c. shall not inherit the kindom of Heaven Now one act does not make them properly such a habit not an act denominates But lest this be expounded to be a permission to commit single acts S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians affixes the same penalty to the actions as to the habits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that do such things that is the actions of those sins are damnable and exclusive from Heaven as verily as the habits And however in moral accounts or in Aristotle's Ethicks a man is not called by the name of a single action yet in all laws both of God and man he is He that steals once is a thief in the Courts of God and the King and one act of adultery makes a man an adulterer so that by this measure they that are such and they that do such things means the same and the effect of both is exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven 26. IV. Single actions in Scripture are called works of darkness deeds of the body works of the flesh and though they do not reign yet if they enter they disturb the rest and possession of the spirit of grace and therefore are in their several measures against the holiness of the Gospel of Christ. All sins are single in their acting and a sinful habit differs from a sinful act but as many differ from one or as a year from an hour a vicious habit is but one sin continued or repeated for as a sin grows from little to great so it passes from act to habit a sin is greater because it is complicated externally or internally no other way in the world it is made up of more kinds or more degrees of choice and when two or three crimes are mixt in one action then the sin is loud and clamorous and if these still grow more numerous and not interrupted and disjoyned by a speedy repentance then it becomes a habit As the continuation of an instant or its perpetual flux makes time and proper succession so does the re-acting or the continuing in any one or more sins make a habitual sinner So that in this Question the answer for one will serve for the other where-ever the habit is forbidden there also the act is criminal and against God damnable by the laws of God and actually damning without repentance Between sins great and little actual and habitual there is no difference of nature or formality but only of degrees 27. V. And therefore the words that represent the state of sin are used indifferently both for acts and habits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to do single acts and by aggravation only can signifie an habitual sinner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that commits sin is of the Devil so S. John by which although he means especially him that commits sin frequently or habitually for where there is greater reason there is the stronger affirmative yet that he must also mean it of single sins is evident not only by the nature of the thing some single acts in some instances being as mischievous and malicious as a habit in others but
by the words of our blessed Saviour that the Devil is the Father of lies and therefore every one that tells a lie is of the Devil eátenus To which add also the words of S. John explicating his whole design in these and all his other words These things I write unto you that ye might not sin that is that ye might not do sinful actions for it cannot be supposed that he did not as verily intend to prevent every sin as any sin or that he would only have men to beware of habitual sins and not of actual single sins without which caution he could never have prevented the habitual To do sin is to do one or to do many and are both forbidden under the same danger 28. The same manner of expression in a differing matter hath a different signification To do sin is to do any one act of it but to do righteousness is to do it habitually He that doth sin that is one act of sin is of the Devil But he that doth righteousness viz. habitually he only is righteous The reason of the difference is this because one sin can destroy a man but one act of vertue cannot make him alive As a phial is broken though but a piece of its lip be cut away but it is not whole unless it be intire and unbroken in every part Bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex qualibet particulari And therefore since he that does righteousness in S. John's phrase is righteous and yet no man is righteous for doing one act of righteousness it follows that by doing righteousness he must mean doing it habitually But because one blow can kill a man or wound him desperately therefore when S. John speaks of doing sin he means doing any sin any way or in any degree of act or habit For this is that we are commanded by the Spirit of Christ we must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 walk exactly not having spot or wrinkle or any thing of that nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and unblameable so must the Church be that is so must be all the faithful or the men and women of the Christian Church for the Church is nothing but a congregation or collective body of believing persons Christ therefore intending to represent the Church of God without spot or wrinkle or fault intends that all his servants should be so For let no man deceive himself Omnis homo qui post baptismum mortalia crimina commiserit hoc est homicidium adulterium furtum falsum testimonium vel reliqua crimina perpetravit unde per legem mundanam mori poterat si poenitentiam non egerit eleemosynam justam non fecerit nunquam habebit vitam aeternam sed cum Diabolo descendet ad inferna Every man who after his baptism hath committed mortal or killing sins that is to say murder adultery theft false witness or any other crimes which are capital by humane laws if he does not repent if he does not give just measures of alms he shall not have eternal life but with the Devil he shall descend into Hell This is the sad sentence against all single acts of sin in the capital or greater instances 28. But upon this account who can be justified who can hope for Heaven since even the most righteous man that is sinneth and by single acts of unworthiness interrupts his course of piety and pollutes his spirit If a single act of these great or mortal sins can stand with the state of grace then not acts of these but habits are forbidden and these only shut a man from Heaven But if one single act destroys the state of grace and puts a man out of Gods favour then no man abides in it long and what shall be at the end of these things 29. To this I answer that single acts are continually forbidden and in every period of their commission displease God and provoke him to anger To abide in any one sin or to do it often or to love it is against the Covenant of the Gospel and the essence and nature of repentance which is a conversion from sin to righteousness but every single act is against the cautions and watchfulness of repentance It is an act of death but not a state it is the way of death but is not in the possession of it It is true that every single act of fornication merits an eternal Hell yet when we name it to be a single act we suppose it to be no more that is to be rescinded and immediately cut off by a vigorous and proportionable repentance if it be not it is more than a single act for it is a habit as I shall remonstrate in the Chapter of Habits But then upon this account a single act of any sin may be incident to the state of a good man and yet not destroy his interests or his hopes but it is upon no other ground but this It is a single act and it does not abide there but passes immediately into repentance and then though it did interrupt or discompose the state of grace or the Divine favour yet it did not destroy it quite The man may pray Davids prayer I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost O seek thy servant for I do not forget thy Commandments 30. So that if a man asks whether a good man falling into one act of these great sins still remains a good man the answer is to be made upon this consideration He is a good man that is so sorry for his sin and so hates it that he will not abide in it and this is the best indication that in the act there was something very pitiable because the mans affections abide not there the good man was smitten in a weak part or in an ill hour and then repents for such is our goodness to need repentance daily for smaller things and too often for greater things But be they great or little they must be speedily repented of and he that does so is a good man still Not but that the single act is highly damnable and exclusive of Heaven if it self were not excluded from his affections but it does not the mischief because he does not suffer it to proceed in finishing that death which it would have effected if the poison had not been speedily expelled before it had seis'd upon a vital part 31. But secondly I answer that being in the state of grace is a phrase of the Schools and is of a large and almost infinite comprehension Every Christian is in some degree in the state of grace so long as he is invited to Repentance and so long as he is capable of the Prayers of the Church This we learn from those words of S. John All unrighteousness is sin and there is a sin not unto death that is some sorts of sins are so incident to the condition of men and their state of imperfection that the man who hath committed
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason taught him well but Nature constrain'd him to the contrary his affections were stronger than his reason 2. And it is no wonder that while flesh and blood is the prevailing ingredient while men are in the state of conjunction and the soul serves the body and the necessities of this are more felt than the discourses of that that men should be angry and lustful proud and revengeful and that they should follow what they lust after not what they are bidden to do For passions and affections are our first governours and they being clearly possessed of all mankind in their first years have almost secured to themselves the soul of man before reason is heard to speak And when she does speak she speaks at first so little and so low that the common noises of fancy and company drown her voice This I say is the state of Nature And therefore Lactantius brings in a Pagan complaining Volo equidem non peccare sed vincor Indutus enim sum carne fragili imbecillâ Haec est quae concupiscit quae irascitur quae dolet quae mori timet Itáque ducor incertus pecco non quia volo sed quia cogor Sentio me ipse peccare sed necessitas fragilitatis impellit cui repugnare non possum I would fain avoid sin but I am compelled I am invested with a frail and weak flesh This is it which lusteth which is angry which grieves which fears to die Therefore I am led uncertainly and I sin not because I will but because I am constrained I perceive that I do ill but the necessity of my weakness drives me on and I cannot resist it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know well and perceive the evils that I go upon and they are horrid ones but my anger is greater than my reason So Medea in the Tragedy This is the state of a natural man in his meer naturals especially as they are made worse by evil customs and vile usages of the world 3. Now this is a state of infirmity and all sins against which there is any reluctancy and contrary desires of actual reason are sins of infirmity But this infirmity excuses no man for this state of infirmity is also a state of death for by this S. Paul expressed that state from which Christ came to redeem us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we were yet in infirmity or without strength in due time Christ died for us that is when when we were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impious or sinners such as the world was before it was redeemed before Christ came These are the sick and weak whom Christ the great Physician of our souls came to save This infirmity is the shadow of death and it signifies that state of mankind which is the state of nature not of original and birth but in its whole constitution as it signifies not only the natural imperfection but the superinduc'd evil from any principle all that which is oppos'd to Grace 4. To this state of Nature being so pitiable God began to find a remedy and renewed the measures of vertue and by a law made them more distinct and legible and impos'd punishments on the transgressors For by little and little the notices of natural reason were made obscure some were lost some not attended to all neglected some way or other till God by a law made express prohibition of what was unreasonable forbidding us to desire what before was unfit and unnatural and threatning them that did things unlawful But this way by reason of the peevishness of men succeeded not well but men became worse by it For what the law did forbid without the threatning of any penalty they took for an advice only and no severe injunction And those Commandments which were established with a threatning to the transgressors they expounded only by the letter and in the particular instance and in the outward act 5. Before the Law men allowed to themselves many impieties which reason indeed mark'd out to be such but no law had forbidden them in express letter They thought it lawful to seduce and tempt another mans wife and invite her to his house and conjugation so he did not steal or force her away but if they found a coldness between her and her husband they would blow the coals and enkindle an evil flame It is supposed that Herod did so to Herodias his brother Philip's wife even after the law They would not by violence snatch the estate from a young prodigal heir but if he were apt they would lend him money and nurse his vice and intangle his estate and at last devour it They would not directly deny to pay the price of a purchase but they would detain it or divert it or pay it in trifling summs or in undesir'd commodities This was Concupiscere rem alienam They did not steal but coveted it and so entred indirectly and this God seeing forbad it by a law For I had not known lust or desires to be a sin saith S. Paul but that the law said Thou shalt not covet 6. But because the law only forbad lustings but imposed no penalty they despis'd it and those things which were forbidden with an appendent penalty they would act them privately For if they avoided the notice of the Criminal Judge they fear'd not the face of an angry God and this Lactantius observ'd of them Metus legum non scelera comprimebat sed licentiam submovebat Poterant enim leges delicta punire conscientiam munire non poterant Itaque quae antè palà m fiebant clam fieri coeperunt circumscribi etiam jura For all the threatnings of the Law they were wicked still though not scandalous vile in private and wary in publick they did circumscribe their laws and thought themselves bound only to the letter and obliged by nothing but the penalty which if they escaped they reckoned themselves innocent Thus far the law instructed them and made them afraid But for the first they grew the more greedy to do what now they were forbidden to desire The prohibition of the law being like a damm to the waters the desire swells the higher for being check'd and the wisdom of Romulus in not casting up a bank against parricide had this effect that until the end of the second Punick war which was almost DC years there was no example of one that kill'd his Father Lucius Ostius was the first And it is certain that the Easterlings neither were nor had they reason to be fond of Circumcision it was part of that load which was complain'd of by the Apostles in behalf of the Jewish Nation which neither they nor their Fathers could bear and yet as soon as Christ took off the yoke and that it was forbidden to his Disciples the Jews were as fond of it as of their pleasures and fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem in immediate
diligence and labour to what sufferings or journeyings he is oblig'd for the procuring of this ministery there must be debita sollicitudo a real providential zealous care to be where it is to be had is the duty of every Christian according to his own circumstances but they who will not receive it unless it be brought to their doors may live in such places and in such times where they shall be sure to miss it and pay the price of their neglect of so great a ministery of Salvation Turpissima est jactura quae per negligentiam sit He is a Fool that loses his good by carelesness But no man is zealous for his Soul but he who not only omits no opportunity of doing it advantage when it is ready for him but makes and seeks and contrives opportunities Si non necessitate sed incuriâ voluntate remanserit as S. Clement's expression is If a man wants it by necessity it may by the overflowings of the Divine Grace be supplied but not so if negligence or choice causes the omission 3. Our way being made plain we may proceed to other places of Scripture to prove the Divine Original of Confirmation It was a Plant of our Heavenly Father's planting it was a Branch of the Vine and how it springs from the Root Christ Jesus we have seen it is yet more visible as it was dressed and cultivated by the Apostles Now as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Spirit they preached and baptized and the inferior Ministers did the same and S. Philip particularly did so at Samaria the Converts of which place received all the Fruits of Baptism but Christians though they were they wanted a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something to make them perfect The other part of the Narrative I shall set down in the words of S. Luke Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and John Who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost For as yet he was fallen upon none of them only they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost If it had not been necessary to have added a new solemnity and ministration it is not to be supposed the Apostles Peter and John would have gone from Jerusalem to impose hands on the Baptized at Samaria Id quod deerat à Petro Joanne factum est ut Oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus said S. Cyprian It was not necessary that they should be Baptized again only that which was wanting was performed by Peter and John that by prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost should be invocated and poured upon them The same also is from this place affirmed by P. Innocentius the First S. Hierom and many others and in the Acts of the Apostles we find another instance of the celebration of this Ritual and Mystery for it is signally expressed of the Baptized Christians at Ephesus that S. Paul first Baptized them and then laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And these Testimonies are the great warranty for this Holy Rite Quod nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs Impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc Spiritûs Sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit universis said Eucherius Lugdunensis in his Homily of Pentecost The same thing that is done now in Imposition of hands on single persons is no other than that which was done upon all Believers in the descent of the Holy Ghost it is the same Ministery and all deriving from the same Authority Confirmation or Imposition of hands for the collation of the Holy Spirit we see was actually practised by the Apostles and that even before and after they preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and therefore Amalarius who entred not much into the secret of it reckons this Ritual as derived from the Apostles per consuetudinem by Catholick custom which although it is not perfectly spoken as to the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority of it yet he places it in the Apostles and is a witness of the Catholick succeeding custom and practice of the Church of God Which thing also Zanchius observing though he followed the sentiment of Amalarius and seemed to understand no more of it yet says well Interim says he exempla Apostolorum veteris Ecclesiae vellem pluris aestimari I wish that the Example of the Apostles and the Primitive Church were of more value amongst Christians It were very well indeed they were so but there is more in it than mere Example These examples of such solemnities productive of such spiritual effects are as S. Cyprian calls them Apostolica Magisteria the Apostles are our Masters in them and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow This is a Christian Law and written as all Scriptures are for our instruction But this I shall expresly prove in the next Paragraph 4. We have seen the Original from Christ the Practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first Converts in Christianity that which I shall now remark is that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine The warranty for what I say is the words of S. Paul where the Holy Rite of Confirmation so called from the effect of this ministration and expressed by the Ritual part of it Imposition of Hands is reckoned a Fundamental point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of Hands of Resurrection from the Dead and Eternal Judgment Here are six Fundamental points of S. Paul's Catechism which he laid as the Foundation or the beginning of the institution of the Christian Church and amongst these Imposition of hands is reckoned as a part of the Foundation and therefore they who deny it dig up Foundations Now that this Imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the Baptized and invocating the Holy Ghost upon them remains to be proved For it is true that Imposition of hands signifies all Christian Rites except Baptism and the Lord's Supper not the Sacraments but all the Sacramentals of the Church it signifies Confirmation Ordination Absolution Visitation of the Sick Blessing single persons as Christ did the Children brought to him and blessing Marriages all these were usually ministred by Imposition of hands Now the three last are not pretended to be any part of this Foundation neither Reason Authority nor the Nature of the thing suffer any such pretension The Question then is between the first three First Absolution of Penitents cannot be meant here not only because we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their Absolutions