it a very high guilt which excludeth so much obstinacy against God And his Apostles were not only defamed by the false Apostles but Diotrophes also prateth against them with malicious words 3 Joh. 10. 14. Now both Ministers in the Church and Governours in the Kingdom are also established by Gods Authority and an honourable deportment towards them is strictly enjoyned by the Sanctions of his Law neither to Secular nor Ecclesiastical Governours When our Saviour sent forth not only the Apostles but even the Seventy Disciples he declared unto them Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me And the authority of secular Governours is so great that the powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation And so far as the laws of God prevail on the minds and tongues of men they will check and silence rash and defaming expressions against them S. Paul mentions this as one of those precepts of the law which lay a strict obligation upon Christians under the Gospel Act. 23.5 Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people Yea the commands of God will not allow so much as an uncharitable thought Eccl. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thought 15. Tertullian gave a true account of the rules of Christianity and of the temper and spirit of the ancient primitive Christians of his age who endured heavy sufferings when he declares that (i) Apol. c. 36. ad Scap. c. 2. our Religion allows not us to desire act speak or think evil toward any much less towards Governours This contrary to the primitive Christian simplicity whom we must honour and reverence as appointed by God But it is a just matter of lamentation that the divine authority of Governours is little regarded among many men who profess Christianity which is a great testimony that true Religion and a sense of God is not duly entertained That in our age a very great part of men are forward rashly to censure and speak dishonourably both against secular rulers and the Bishops and Ministers of the Church is a thing so plain and obvious that observing men cannot but take notice of it and pious and good men are heartily grieved at it And this misbehaviour towards the pious Bishops of the Church was also many ages since observed and complained of and the ill effects thereof were in some measure provided against by the Canon of a (k) Concil Constant c. 6. General Council when discords and divisions prevailed in the Church And such calumnies as Balsamon there observeth Satan doth much endeavour to soment and cherish 16. Thus Corah and his company were forward with presumptuous confidence but agreeable to the presumption of Core to speak against Moses their chief Ruler and Aaron the Priest slandering and opposing them and this pleased the Congregation of Israel who were too ready to comply with them But this was so provoking to God and so pernicious to the Israelites that there were many exceeding severe punishments inflicted by God upon the Israelites for these offences For Numb 16. the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up Corah and his company the fire from the Lord consumed those men who intruded themselves into the office of the Priest to offer Incense and a dreadful plague brake out upon the Congregation and destroyed suddenly fourteen thousand and seven hundred but was stayed by Aarons making atonement And these things are so far written for our examples that where-ever the like sins are committed under the time of Christianity they are as evil and destructive as they were under the law of Moses since the Gospel gives particular precepts for the honouring Superiours and threats upon the neglect of them and S. Jude declares concerning such disobedient persons who swerved from the true Spirit of Christianity and despise dominion that they perished in the gainsaying of Core Jude 11. 17. Fourthly 4. Men of the sweetest and meekest behaviour are roughly dealt with by virulent tongues Our Saviour was a person of admirable meekness but neither did this preserve him from detraction and calumny He had no proud and haughty carriage he injured no man by word or deed nor gave them any just provocation It is frequent in the world that words and actions of strife and contention do kindle more strife though they ought not so to do If a storm be begun one wave will raise another but in a perfect calm to see the Sea grow boisterous of it self is somewhat unusual And whereas a fiery fierceness of temper is apt to kindle heats and disturbances it was observed in the writings of the Jewish Authors that the result or end of meekness (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is welfare peace and quiet and so it frequently is both to mans self and to them with whom he converseth but it was much otherwise in the practice of the Jewish Nation towards him who was the great pattern of meekness gentleness and patience 18. Indeed it is sinful for any Christians Licentious expressions not justified when occasioned by provocations to give way to their passions and unbecoming expressions though they meet with provocations These provocations are temptations laid before them but their Religion teacheth them to beware of and reject temptations and not to yield to them and suffer themselves to be overcome and prevailed upon by them Even when the Israelites provoked Moses so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips it went ill with him Psal 106.32 33. And when S. Paul was smitten contrary to the law Act. 23. he in that case acknowledgeth the obligation of this duty Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people And the Doctrine of Christianity obligeth its Professors to love their enemies to bless them which curse them and to pray for them who despitefully use them and persecute them The precepts of some of the (m) Plat. in Crit. Maxim Tyr. Diss 2. Ethnick Philosophers went so far as to condemn the returning injuries to them from whom we receive wrong and some rare instances there are among Pagans of some who declared they would and others who actually did treat them with much kindness who had greatly injured them But the doctrine of our Saviour appeareth to have gone higher than the rules which their wisest men prescribed in enjoining as a necessary duty the exercise of love kindness doing good unto and praying for our enemies 19. But that Religion which will not allow of passion and reviling where there may be some considerable occasion given will much more detest it in such cases where there is truly no such occasion but are more unreasonable when without any occasion given For this most clearly shews such men to be much more hurried and commanded by a swelling
the place which God chuseth under the New Testament What is urged by Innocentius the Third hath no infallible evidence as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testament and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy continues established under the Gospel And it may be wondered that such a thing should be affirmed if it were not to impose on others when the Book of Deuteronomy contains many things concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices and other Jewish Feasts and in that is that particular permission of divorce which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel Deut. 24.1 Mat. 19.8 9. and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy 11. In the same Epistle as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.3 and tells us that Paul that he might expound the plenitude of power writing to the Corinthians saith Nescitis quoniam Angelos judicabitis quanto magis secularia Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels how much more the things of this life or things secular But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians bid directly concern the Church of Corinth And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World or the Church as he did not it would appear from this place to be as much if not more fixed in S. Paul and the Church of Corinth as any where else and it must needs be hard to prove that S. Paul in these words declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome both over Corinth and all the World when he said Know ye not that we shall judge c. 12. What light the two great Luminaries give to the Popes power But that proof which passeth all the rest which is urged in the same decretal Epistle is from Gods making two great Luminaries the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night from whence it is there inferred that the power of the Bishop of Rome is as much above all Secular power as the Sun is above the Moon And it may be also hence collected that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal as was declared hence by (b) v. Addit ad Pâ—de Marc. de Couc S. sâ—â—p l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth Now from hence it may appear that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis may be as effectual though it be nothing to the purpose as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy And this is such a wonderful Argument that so far as the strength of it will reach it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome to be ordained of God before the coming uf Christ and even before any promise made concerning the Messias and before the fall of man but that this was established before Adam was created and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of the World And therefore if this authority be rightly applied it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest antiquity of this power in the Church of Rome and deriveth its original much higher than most men have been aware of and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority conveyed unto S. Peter when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams but not to be seen by mens eyes in the first springing forth of their light 13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer And it can scarce be imagined that they who laid down these testimonies as a foundation to support the Papal power could have any other design than to delude and impose upon the great ignorance of the World And if it be a wicked and abominable thing for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate or to counterfeit the Kings broad Seal to serve his interest it is far worse to design to deal falsly in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God and to the greatest rights of men and the publick interest and peace of the World And I think no men ever spake more wildly about these things than the Popes themselves have done the extravagancy of their pleas bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims 14. Thirdly I observe Observ 3. The high Papal power was unknown to the ancient Roman Bishops that the pretence of this high Papal power which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms hath this manifest mark of an encroachment usurpation and innovation in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome never knew any thing thereof but did profess and own their subjection to Emperours and their Authority The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers And it may be sufficient here to note that I have (c) Christ loyalty B. 1. ch 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great in another place shewed that Leo the Great submissively owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority and that with respect to the external administration of matters Ecclesiastical And it is manifest from the Writings of Gregory the Great that he both submissively behaved himself towards Mauritius the Emperour as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord and that he thought he ought so to do When Mauritius declared his desire that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory and John Patriarch of Constantinople (d) Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus his Lord whom God had constituted and owns himself to be his Servant and such language is very frequent in his Epistles and lets the Emperour know that in that matter in which the cause of God was also concerned he would do what on his part could be done To Gregory the Great Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord and in this case he saith Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam praebeo Which words shew sufficiently that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperour but acknowledged his owing subjection to him And when Mauritius had made a Law that no person in any publick Secular Office should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders and that no Souldiers might be admitted into Monasteries Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperour concerning this Law expressing his good liking and approbation of the former part but with much (e) Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100. earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part as being contrary to God and Religion And in the close of that Epistle he acquaints the Emperour that in subjection to his commands he had
caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God And then adds utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought I have yielded obedience to the Emperour and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God And in this Epistle also and in others frequently he owns Mauritius to be his Lord and himself to be his Servant And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Emperours was from humility and gracious condescension only can have no place here For he went as far as any Subject in his capacity might do in what he was perswaded was unlawful and further than he might do who was no Subject In humility he might dispense with his own right but not with what concerns God and Religion 15. These things do so plainly shew that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperour to be their Superiour even in constituting Laws and doing other acts which had respect to the state of Religion that I think it unnecessary to add other instances which might be given for many Centuries The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power But Conradus (f) Ursp p. 336. Vrspergensis differing herein from Otho whom he mentions seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceedings upon Gregory the Third who above seven hundred years after Christ in the contest concerning Images where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images should have highly honoured the Emperour who bare the impress of Divine authority did (g) ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperour and deprived him of his rights there But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him were not of the like spirit and temper Above an hundred years after him Leo the Fourth (h) Gratian. Dist 10. de capitulis and to Leo the Fourth assures Lotharius the Emperour that he would as much as he was able irrefragably keep and observe his imperial precepts and that they were lyars who should suggest the contrary concerning him and (i) c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incompetenter he likewise submits his actions to be examined by the Emperour or such as he should commissionate and to be corrected or amended if he had done amiss and not kept to the right rule of the Law 16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power so much contended for at Rome is not only the disturbing peace Such Principles of Rebellion lead men to damnation fomenting Wars and unjust invading the right of Princes but besides the ambition therein contained by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Soveraigns it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation Rom. 13.2 And such rebellious practices are the more promoted by those frantick principles of many of the Church of Rome which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects which give liberty to Subjects without respect to the Popes Sentence to take away the lives of Princes It is too clear to be denied that such Positions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits and it must be granted also that there is truth in what some of the Jesuits have observed that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome before the first institution of that Order 17. The Pope's usurped claim over other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil unduly occasioned in the Church by the claim the Roman See pretends to over all other Bishops and Churches To this authority she hath no just title but the exercise of this power did obtain and prevail in many Churches by various methods and degrees of encroachment And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated Hence this Church obtrudes on others her pernicious Doctrines and practices under a pretence of authority And by the same means it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules 18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches could never be founded in any actual possession or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution of what nature soever For an incroaching authority is void by the ancient Canons especially that of Ephesus and being an unjust possession ought to return to him who hath the true right And where there hath been any consent given to an unjust claim by misunderstanding or upon any other account or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes falsty pretended to be of Divine Authority or by Bishops in any part of the Church to yield or convey any Superiour Authority to the Roman Bishop they cannot by any act of their own exclude themselves and their Successors from the obligation to perform their duty in duly guiding governing and reforming their people And therefore so far as the authority which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ doth oblige them to the performance of this work no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome nor any act done by any others or even by themselves can set them free from it But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope as not derived from any human Constitution but from the authority of Christ To which purpose the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares That the Catholick Church (k) Catech. ad Paroch c. de Ordinis Sacramento Summum in eo dignitatis gradum jurisdictionis amplitudinem non quidem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus sed divinitus datam agnoscit quamobrem omnium fidelium episcoporum caeterorumque antistitum quocunque illi munere potestate praediti sint pater ac moderator universali Ecclesiae ut Petri Successor Christique Domini verus legitimus vicarius praesidet doth acknowledge in him the Pope the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction not given him by any Synodical or other human Constitutions but by Divine Authority wherefore he the Father and Governour of all the Faithful and of the Bishops and the rest who are in chief Authority whatsoever Office or Power they are indued with doth preside over the the Vniversal Church as the Successor of Peter and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord. 19. But notwithstanding this great noise it was unknown to the ancient Church no such Divine institution hath been or can be produced and pasce oves and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned and no such thing can be
497. at the Council of Trent declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils and thought he had proved that sufficiently by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas must depend on the Popes Confirmation And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith who in other cases and in his own person is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible even concerning Matters of Faith 7. But there are others or Oral Tradition who call themselves Members of that Church but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope or Council more than of other men but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition and thence conclude that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition must be infallibly true because no Age could make any change therein This is Mr. White 's way and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant But what is said in defence of this way is pure Sophistry And if such persons furnished with these Notions or Fancies had lived in the beginning of Christianity they might have been Advocates either for Paganism or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition might have been urged as well as for the Church of Rome and almost in a persect Parallel 8. Secondly Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils in deciding controversies There is good reason to think that the chief men of the Church of Rome give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility For in such great Controversies wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision from their Infallibility even in such cases where such a decision would contribute much to truth would end quarrels and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences And therefore the determining such things would be an excellent work of charity but the leaving them undetermined or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination may be politick lest they should disoblige the contrary party I shall instance in that Question which is at some times of concernment to all Mens Consciences of their Communion whether the authority of the Pope or a General Council be the greater Which hath never yet been decided by the consent of a Pope and a General Council Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council And Pius the second in a Provincial Council at Mantua declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope to a future Council to be void and Schismatical which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second But this way of decision is so little satisfactory among themselves that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent openly declare (r) Hist Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope and that this was the general sense of the French Church And divers other Bishops spake their judgments there to the same purpose 9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope and yet this is no satisfactory decision to them of the contrary opinion So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility whether in the Pope or in a General Council slighted by themselves as they think fit And this is a thing of such concern that if the highest authority be in the Council this must fix the Infallibility there also if there be any such thing because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance and so must include God's Authority in that Determination to which none can be Superior If this be seated in the Council it would take down the Pope's Plumes If in the Pope the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils as a needless thing and then all those Christian Churches Emperors and Bishops which will take in divers Bishops of Rome were very imprudent who either laboured much for them or took any great satisfaction in them Wherefore it must needs be a business of design and not of integrity to make a loud noise about Infallibility to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men when they have so low an esteem of it themselves 10. Thirdly No Infallibility of the Roman Church Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter it is observable that S. Peter himself though an eminent and prime Apostle even in a Council had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apostles For in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. when after much disputation S. Peter had declared his sense v. 7 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment v. 13 21. the final determination of that Council did much more follow the words of S. James than of S. Peter v. 19 20. with 28 29. Wherefore the claim of (ſ) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth in his Epistle to the Emperor must have an higher Plea than that of Succession to S. Peter that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council he doth not only alone propose but he also alone decrees and the Council adds nothing but Approbation 11. Nor can it be imagined that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope or Romish Church that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen Bishop of Rome concerning the Baptism of Hereticks But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error but declares him to have written proudly impertinently ignorantly and imprudently which sufficiently shews him to have known nothing of his Infallibility And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also approving S. Cyprian's answer to it and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen as bold insolent and evil improbè gesta And (w) Sent. Episcop Conc. Carth. in
subject besides that of this particular Congregation 6. But First This is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures declare and all the ancient Churches of God agreeably thereto have practised concerning the right order and Government of the Church What is more evident in the Scriptures than that the several Churches of Christians were under the Authority and Government of the Apostles themselves which is sufficient to manifest that it was no Institution nor intendment of Christ that particular Churches should not be subject to any Superior Ecclesiastical Authority Nor was such Governing Authority peculiar to the Apostles themselves but was by them thought requisite to be committed to the care of others Hence for instance Titus was in Crete appointed by Saint Paul to ordain Elders in every City and to set in order the things which were wanting Tit. 1.5 and other expressions of his Governing or Episcopal power are contained in divers expressions of that Epistle But it must be a strange strength of imagination that can inable any man to conceive that when Crete was a Country almost three hundred miles in length and so greatly peopled that it was very anciently called Hecatompolis as having a hundred great places or Cities within its Territories and Titus was to ordain Elders in every City yet all these should make up but one particular Congregation unto which the power of Titus should be confined 7. And concerning the Authority of Councils it is manifest that upon occasion of some Judaizing Teachers disturbing the Christian Church at Antioch the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. met together and gave their authoritative decision concerning Circumcision and other Jewish Rites not to be imposed on the Gentile Christians any further than they particularly injoined This may well be called a General Council since it not only pronounced a decisive determination concerning the Universal Church expressing what the Gentiles were not to admit or were obliged to practise and on what terms the Jews were bound to admit and not scruple Communion with the Gentiles but also had in it such persons who being Apostles had an undoubted universal Authority over the whole Church And whereas the decision of the Apostles themselves alone and their Authority had been of it self abundantly sufficient to lay an obligation upon the Christian Church in that particular case the Apostles notwithstanding this took in with them the Elders of the Church to debate and consider of this matter Act. 15.6 which is a sufficient evidence that the Apostles did allow such Elders or Church-Officers as they established in the Church to have a power in Councils to order and determine what related to the affairs of the Church by Synodical Authority for otherwise the Apostles would never have joyned them with themselves to this purpose 8. And S. Paul was so forward and zealous to require a general obedience to the decision of this Council that in his Ministry he delivered to the Cities where he preached the decrees for to keep which were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem Act. 16.4 And here that expression of his delivering these Decrees as not only ordained of the Apostles but of the Apostles and Elders also deserves to be considered as thereby laying a more clear and manifest foundation for the Authority of future Synods and Councils of the Officers and Bishops of the Christian Church And it may be further observed that case in which S. Paul rebuked S. Peter Gal. 2. was his not acting according to the rules of this Council and a complying further with the Jewish Rites and the favourers of the Circumcision than was here determined and not being ready to own that liberty of the Gentile Church which was contained in this Synodical decision 9. And consonant hereunto the ancient Christian Churches did all along greatly reverence the authoritative decision of Catholick Councils and Synods the Canons of which are so well known to all men of ordinary reading that he must be a man greatly ignorant of Ecclesiastical affairs who knows nothing of them And in several General and Provincial Councils and in those Canons particularly taken into that ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles or into the Codes of the Universal Church of the Western Church or the African Church many things were established by them for the peace unity and order of the Church and especially for the promoting purity therein and the degrees of the punishment by suspension deposition excommunication and the continuance thereof upon the offenders are there plainly determined to be a Rule for the several Churches to act by And in these ancient Councils when there was great occasion for such heavy sentences the most eminent Officers or the Bishops of those most renowned places in the Christian Church were deposed or excommunicated by their Synodical Authority and not by their own particular Church Thus was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch deposed by the Council at Antioch Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople by the General Council of Ephesus and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria by the General Council of Chalcedon to which multitudes of other instances may be given And in particular Churches the great and eminent authority fixed in Bishops though the Canons allowed but one Bishop in the greatest City with its precincts is sufficient to shew that the particular Congregations in that City had no such Independency of power and Government So that this branch of Independency opposeth the Apostolical order and the constant practice and sense of all primitive Christian Churches from the Apostles 10. Secondly This notion of Independency lays a foundation for perpetual confusion and division in the Church and subverts the precepts for Christian Unity For according to this Principle so far as concerns power and authority any company of men may set up for themselves apart and multiply Sects and distinct Communions and none having any Superior Government over them these parties and divisions may be perpetuated and subdivided to the scandal and Reproach of Christianity and no way left for any authority in the Christian Church to check and redress them So that this notion is perfectly fitted to serve the interest of Schism and discord and to heighten and increase but is as fully opposite to the Unity and honour of the Christian Religion For if we should admit for the present the scanty and imperfect notion of Schism which Dr. O. (p) Review of Sch. against Mr. Cawdr c. 8 9. hath framed that it is needless divisions of judgement and discord in a particular Congregation when departing from it is no Schism if the guilty party should so far unchristianly foment such discords as to deserve the censure of that Church and shall withal proceed so far as openly to separate and depart from it they have by this means according to this notion after a strange and admirable manner set themselves free and clear both from sin and censure For when they have thus openly separated from
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
Preach the Gospel to every Creature So that this was not a singular Authority committed to St. Peter but he was first made choice of to have a right understanding of the extent of his Commission And it is not to be doubted but that Authority which did belong to all the Apostles of leading Men to the Church receiving them into it governing them in it and excluding them from it doth contain the chief part of the power of the Keys 3. To us not only to the Apostles but even to other Officers of the Church as Bishops and Priests or Presbyters is given this Ministry of Reconciliation for if we consider the nature of this Office the Ministry of Reconciliation or which is all one the Ministry of the Gospel must not cease till the end of it in the Salvation of Men be accomplished And our Saviour both promiseth his Presence and Authority to be with his Ministry unto the end of the World and establisheth them in his Church till we all come in the Unity of the Faith Mat. 28.20 Eph. 4.14 and Knowledg of the Son of God unto a perfect Man And we may further observe That in writing this second Epistle to the Corinthians it is manifest from the Inscription thereof that Timothy therein joined with S. Paul Now though he was no Apostle nor a Companion of St. Paul till after the Council of Jerusalem as appears from the History of the Acts yet he here as well as St. Paul hath a share in the Ministry of Reconciliation That Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus is generally declared by the Ancient Writers Eusebius attesteth it Eus Hist l. 3. c. 4. and besides others this was expressed by Leontius in the great Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Action 11. there being then preserved an exact Record and Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church And though Learned Men herein disagree and there is manifest difficulty in fixing the Chronology it is greatly probable from comparing the Epistles to Timothy with the History of the Acts that he was not yet made Bishop of Ephesus when this Epistle to the Corinthians was written And this might then give some fair probability from the instance of Timothy that that Order of Priest or Presbyter as distinct from a Bishop was of an Apostolical and therefore a Divine Original But because several difficulties too large to be here discussed must be obviated for the clearing this particular I shall rather fix upon another Consideration which may be sufficient to perswade the same It is very evident from the History of the Acts and some expressions in the Epistles that for several years after the famous Church of Ephesus was founded by St. Paul Timothy the first Bishop there was usually with St. Paul in his Journeys or by his Command in other places Now it may be acknowledged that the chief Government and power of Censure in several Churches was for some time reserved in the hands of the Apostles themselves though at a distance as is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians it was concerning the Church of Corinth But he who shall think that in all this time they had no Church-Officer fixed amongst them in that great Church of Ephesus to administer the Holy Communion and celebrate other needful Ministerial Performances must account the Apostles to have had no great care of the Churches they planted nor the Churches to have had any great zeal for the Religion they embraced which no Man can judg who hath any knowledg of the Spirit of that Primitive Christianity But if they had in the Church of Ephesus other fixed Officers distinct from the Bishop to celebrate the Holy Communion and other necessary acts of ordinary Ministration then must the Order of Presbyters be of as early original in the Church as the History of the Acts and then the ordaining Elders in every Church must take in those who are distinctly called Priests or Presbyters To this I add that the Office of Presbyter includeth an Authority to tender in God's Name remission of Sins and as from him to exhibit to his Church the Sacramental Symbols of his Grace and upon that account no such Office could ever have its Original from any lower than Apostolical and Divine Authority 4. To us in different Ranks and Orders in the Church not in a parity and equality Here is S. Paul an Apostle and Timothy in an Order inferiour to him When Christ was upon Earth he appointed the Apostles and the Seventy and when he Ascended he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers And though most of these were Officers by an extraordinary Commission which are ceased yet when Timothy was fixed at Ephesus where there then were Presbyters as I have shewed the chief power of Government and the care of Ordination was intrusted in his hands singly as is manifest and hath been oft observed from the Epistles to Timothy The like appears concerning Titus as also that the chief care of the Churches of Asia was in the hands of the Angels of those Churches If we consult the Ancient state of the Church this chief Government in a single Person or Bishop in those ancient times took place as far as Christianity it self reached Besides what may be said from particular Writers 1 Can. Ap. 2. Can. Nic. 19. the first General Council of Nice and the more ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles do both of them not only frequently mention as distinct Offices the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon but also express this distinction between Bishop and Presbyter 1. 2 Can. Ap. 1. Can Nic. 4. 3 Can. Ap. 15 31 32 38. Conc. Nic. c. â— That the peculiar power of Ordaining doth reside in the Bishop 2. That he receiveth his Episcopal Office by a special Ordination thereto 3. That he hath a particular power of governing and censuring the Laiety and other Clergy And he who shall consider that many things in the Scripture may receive considerable Light from understanding the custom of the Jews and even of the Gentiles must needs acknowledg that an account of the practice and customs of the Christian Church may lead us to the true sense of those expressions of Scripture which have relation thereto especially since no Man without this help can give a satisfactory account of the distinct work and business of those ordinary Church-Officers which are particularly mentioned in Scripture Wherefore I doubt not but according to the Scripture and the Universal practice of the ancient Church throughout the World the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining Sins which takes in the whole Office of the Ministry is in some eminent parts of it wholly reserved to Bishops while other parts thereof are dispensed by Priests and some by Deacons Ignat. ad Smyr Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. yet so that these ever acted with submission to the Bishop as is asserted by Ignatius and Tertullian
excellent works And he was as (e) Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrinus speaks with some allusion to the name Jesus as if it had been from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal one that heals and cures both the bodies and the souls of men Yet he who went up and down doing good was evil spoken of Such were the unkind returns which his greatest kindness and care met with And this is frequently the fate of the most useful and serviceable men in their generations 9. Evil and mischievous men deserve to be accounted infamous by all and to be severely punished also But they are under gross mistakes who set themselves against their most faithful friends as if they were their chiefest enemies and yet this is very common among men When the Apostles of our Lord used their utmost endeavours and diligence to acquaint men with the truth of Religion to turn them from Satan to God and to make them happy and to that end had undergone many dangers necessities difficulties and sufferings they were still so far defamed and reproached as to be accounted as the filth of the world and the off scowring of all things And when David's ruling Israel was managed with that faithfulness and prudence that the Holy Ghost testified that he fed them according to the integrity of his heart and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands Psal 78.72 Yet by the smooth tongue and subtle insinuations of Absolom his government was wholly misrepresented as if he had taken no care of justice and righteousness 2 Sam. 15.3 4. And the people hereby became so deluded that Absolom stole the hearts of the men of Israel v. 6. 10. And besides many other instances And so hath the infinitely good God been spoken against which might easily be given in the History of the World it is remarkable that when God himself had framed man after his own Image given him the Dominion of other Creatures and planted him in a Paradise and place of delight and pleasure there wanted not an accusation against him and his government as if he intended to keep man in an unreasonable subjection and to debar him of that perfection of state which he might otherwise have obtained Gen. 3.5 And when he had given that admirable instance of his care and favour towards Israel in bringing them out of Egypt with a mighty hand and guiding and feeding them miraculously in the Wilderness by his wonderful power yet how oft did they speak against God in the desart even whilst he was following them with his goodness Wherefore there is much of truth in what was observed by (f) de beneficiis l. 1. c. 1 c. Seneca that among all the great vices which prevail in the world there is none more frequent than to want a grateful sense of the receiving of good And though as he observes the fierce wild beasts as the Lion and the Elephant express a kind apprehension of the benefits and good which they receive from those who take care of them yet even among men there are those qui pessime loquuntur de optime meritis who defame that which deserves the highest commendation 11. From these instances I have given it may appear what an unaccountable thing it is to be led by or even to give heed unto This unreasonable sin is pernicious to the practisers the aspersions and defaming expressions of unruly tongues which oft-times speak licentiously against the Heavens and against the most deserving men upon Earth But the evil and danger of these practices is as considerable as the disorder folly and unreasonableness of them In every one of the instances I mentioned it went very ill with the evil-speaker They who spake against God in the wilderness were smitten with various dreadful judgments and they perished in the Desart Our first Parents who were beguiled to hearken to suggestions against the Laws and Precepts of their Maker in Paradise were dispossessed of their Eden and brought great calamities on themselves and upon all their posterity to this day Absolom and they who were perswaded by him into an undeserved ill opinion of David and were drawn in to oppose his government were destroyed and a very great slaughter followed of the men of Israel And all those who despised our Saviour and his Apostles and their Doctrine deprived themselves thereby of the admirable benefits of that great salvation 12. Thirdly 3. The defaming tongue gives not due reverence to those who have divine authority Our Lord was one who came invested with the highest authority which was fully attested and yet he was disrespected and dishonoured He was sent from God and what he spake and acted was in his name The authority of God deserves and commands reverence from men and it is a presumptuous boldness to treat such persons without due honourable respect whose office and business is appointed and ordained of God and where themselves bring sufficient evidence of this Divine Authority He who honoureth a Prince will express a reverent demeanour to all those who act in managing any high office in his name and by his special commission And where there is a true honour and fear of God it will engage an hearty respect for all those who are established by him But such is the wild extravagancy of a disorderly tongue led by the heat and violence of passion that it so far casts off the sense of God and his fear as to dare rashly to vent it self against those persons towards whom God himself hath particularly enjoyned and required an honourable esteem and awful reverence 13. The blessed Jesus was the only Son of God and his mission from God was sufficiently evidenced by the Prophecies which were accomplished in him by the testimony of S. John Baptist of the Angels and of the voice from Heaven by the heavenliness and Divine Character of his Doctrine and by all the mighty miracles which he wrought From hence even Josephus whose words have been observed by divers very ancient Christian Writers spake of him with that honour and esteem that he calls him (g) Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 18. c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man if it be fit to call him a man Yet he who came in his Fathers name was rejected and reviled and they resolvedly despised him and censured his person and the miracles which they beheld and the power by which he wrought them while they might plainly enough discern that he was sent from God and that his Miracles were Divine And this strange refractory perverseness in their deportment against him and his works and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in them hath been (h) Amb. de poenit l. 2. c. 4. Athanas in illud Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis c. justly esteemed to be the main thing contained in the sin against the Holy Ghost And that behaviour must needs contain in
apprehend to be most natural the Apostle in those latter words v. 5. which are the key to the former owneth and confesseth some sudden unadvisedness in what he had expressed v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said God shall smite thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy did know that Ananias would come to an untimely end and in these words expressed so much For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God meerly in a passion And though Ananias lived after this several years in honour yet afterwards (m) Joseph de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers who were very mischievous in Judea he with his Brother was taken and murdered by them That phrase of a whited wall with other such like might in some cases admit of a favourable interpretation to denote painted innocency and not real according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Parâ—â—2 ch 1.11 hereafter noted Yet this and the words following being spoken in some passion as appears from the connexion of these clauses Thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge c. the Apostle being admonished thereof readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions His formâ—r sudden words not free from all fault There are indeed by many great pains taken to acquit S. Paul from being chargeable with any even the least fault in what he had here spoken notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement as the like is done by many also to free S. Peter from all blame Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him and his plain declaration that he was to be blamed v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains in a weighty matter of practice to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein as may excuse the largeness of my discourse concerning the explication of these words 44. Some with (o) Chrys in Act. 23. S. Chrysostome think that what the Apostle said to Ananias contained no expressions of any undue disrepect but that he used a just freedom in speaking thus to a Ruler and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense they think that the Apostle spake these words I wist not that he was the High Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people in such a way of complyance with his auditory that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers when in truth he did not do so nor intended any such thing And by this method that there might not appear any even the least fault in the Apostles practice they admit a want of sincerity in what he declared as a duty and doctrine that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit and that includes a very great fault in practice also And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter above-mentioned and the admitting this would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler in such a case of injury is manifest enough in that when Festus told him he was besides himself and was mad Acts 26.24 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect I am not mad most noble Festus nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return though but to an inferiour Officer of the Court who stroke him with the palm of his hand John 18.22 23. 45. Many others are of opinion that when S. Paul said and several methods used by others he wist not that he was the High Priest he thereby justified his former words by denying him to be an High Priest to whom if he had been so indeed he ought not to have thus spoken To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines upon thoughts that S. Paul would now own none other under the title of High Priest but only our blessed Saviour And yet it is plain that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest to him who was so called amongst the Jews Acts 22.5 and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour to the Priestly Service at the Temple that he there purified himself and designed to offer his Offering Acts 21.26 Others think that he denyed Ananias to have any just authority (r) Erasm in Act. 23.3 because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them not only the good and gentle but also the froward 1 Pet. 2.18 and our Religion teacheth that if we do well and suffer for it and take it patiently this is acceptable with God v. 20. And (Å¿) Annot. in Act. 23.5 Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias because saith he he came into his Office by purchasing it with money But I can see no particular proof of his accusation and Josephus speaks oft of him as a person of great reputation and honour and however such a crime in an inferiour Officer will not make invalid the authority of a superiour by which he acts untill the superiour shall think fit to recall it even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth was not void of it self though procured by Ziba's lye until David had otherwise determined And it is abundantly sufficient against alll these pretences in this Paragraph to observe that the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God in them do frequently own Ananias to be at that time an High or Chief Priest Acts 23.2 ch 24.1 ch 25.2 and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty by presuming that to be false which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest as will appear from what I shall now add 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an High or Chief Priest but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest who entred into the Holy of Holies In the Old Testament sometimes and often in the New there are more persons than one who are called Chief Priests and so there were in this very Council before which S. Paul now appeared Acts 22.30
advantage of that good advice and guidance for his present action which he might otherwise have had 2. The thing mainly intended in these promises is that the Spirit of God should so guide and assist the Apostles and others as S. Stephen in their bearing witness to Christianity before Rulers and Governours that they should not be ashamed to own the truth and that they should be enabled to make it manifest with such evidence as should baffle and confound their adversaries who could not deny or disprove the truth of what they alledged in their testimony And S. Paul did thus confound them who opposed his Doctrine in Jerusalem Act. 22 1-22 chap. 23.1 6-9 11.3 Whereas the only thing in any wise amiss in what the Apostle said was that there fell from him a sudden expression too much reflective upon a Governour it may be here noted First That these his words appear all of them to be truth and the fault in them was they were uttered with some passionateness of temper and without sufficient reverence in the manner of expression Secondly By his recalling such words as these and owning his surprize therein the tenderness of his conscience and the strictness of his doctrine concerning the honouring of Rulers and against the least word of undue disrespect towards them is in a more eminent manner set down for the instruction and guidance of all Ages than if there had been no appearance at all of any thing blameable in his former expression Thirdly This is the more remarkable because this his reflexion upon and retracting what he had thus spoken as also the Doctrine he urgeth thereupon was no doubt under the guidance of that Spirit which our Saviour had promised in this case and so makes his Example in this particular to be a necessary pattern for every Christian that if he should offend in the like manner he ought to retract and own his fault in the least miscarriage of his expression 53. From this Practice and Doctrine of the Apostle I shall further observe First that though these words were but once spoken S. Paul's reflective words though but once spoken and upon a sudden provocation and then also in a sudden surprize and upon a great provocation of injurious dealing though the Apostle had never gone so far as frequently to blaze abroad by open contumelious expressions or secret whisperings what might ill affect the people against their Governour Yet in this case he acknowledged the fault and would by no means persist in it or do so any more And if one single reflective expression was not allowable in him who was commanded to be smitten against law and had no intention of defaming Authority the same and much more the frequently repeated uttering designed reproaches is far more blameable in them who receive no such injury but are rather favoured beyond what the Law establisheth Nor did the Apostle allow of such expressions towards Ananias being a Ruler though he was on this account a bad man as being a zealous opposer of the true Christian Doctrine And he would in no wise justifie but retract such reflective words though true as those which in some passion unwarily fell from him 54. Secondly Ananias was far from being a Supreme Governour Caesar had now the chief Authority in Judea and Felix was a Deputy Governour under him and both the President of Judea and the High Priest were under the power of the (ſ) Joseph Ant. l. 20. c. 5. de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to a subordinate Ruler Governour of Syria And Ananias was so far inferiour to Felix in his Authority that he with the other Synedrial Elders appeared upon summons before the tribunal of Felix as an Higher Court to desire judgment against Saint Paul Acts 24.1 And this and other things also he did at the command of Lysias the Chief Captain Act. 22.30 chap. 23.30 chap. 24.8 which shews his Authority also to be superior to that of Ananias And both Felix and Lysias disposed of the Apostle Paul otherwise than was desired by Ananias and the Elders And the Jewish Consistory in which Ananias sate was now in a declining state all power of capital punishments having for about thirty years been taken from them by the Roman Authority Now expressions aspersing a Superiour or supreme Governour are the greater fault because they affront an higher Authority to which a more eminent degree of honour and reverence is due yet S. Paul would not defend but condemn such a behaviour towards one who was in such an inferiour subordinate and declining Authority as that of Ananias and the Sanhedrin then was 55. Thirdly The Apostle declared thus much are presently and openly recalled in the face of a Civil Court presently after he had spoken the former words and as soon as he had considered them and was enquired of concerning them he made no demurr or delay but forthwith he forwardly and readily owned the indecency and unlawfulness of such expressions And this he also did very plainly and openly before the whole Assembly of the Jews that no person might either defend his practice or follow his example where he had spoken amiss This also he did in a Civil Consistory or Court though he was an Apostle and being there charged with a fault in his behaviour towards a Ruler he doth not so decline the thing as if it was fit for him to give his answer in a Civil Consistory But he there owns his duty and his fault also and treated Civil Governours at another rate than either the Conclave or the Kirk would do For though a Priest was sometimes not always President of the Jewish Sanhedrin that was chiefly a Civil Court (t) Seld de Syned l. 3. c. 1 2 c. inflicted Civil punishments and took cognisance of criminal causes and appeals from other inferiour Judicatures and in the progress of this case for which S. Paul was brought before them after he had been heard by Felix and Festus he appealed unto Caesar 56. Now I think that what I have said is not inconsiderable for my Exposition of these words which represents them to be a signal example of acknowledging the fault of any indecent expression towards a Superiour And I thought the influence which this ought to have upon the lives of men to be of so great use that it may be a sufficient excuse for my long discourse upon these words Yet I must acknowledge that the greater number of Writers which I have seen who discourse of these words and some very worthy and learned men do excuse the Apostle's words to Ananias from all blame according to some of the methods above mentioned especially by supposing that he did not know Ananias to be an High Priest or Ruler or that he did not own his Authority But since the Apostle was designedly brought to appear before the Jewish Council Act. 22.30 and when he began to speak did
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
alwaies preserved from alteration and change yea even at Rome notwithstanding this way of delivery wherein the following Generation have received their Language from their Fathers yet if they who conversed there in the Apostles times were now alive they would discern such alteration of speech and even in speaking mens names that they would not be able to understand their present language and if they can shew no greater security for the delivery of their Doctrine than of their Language that also may be as much changed notwithstanding their help of Tradition And it may be further observed that those Languages which in this way of Traditional Learning are grosly corrupted and even lost such as Hebrew Greek and Latin yet in Books and Writings they are faithfully preserved which shews Writings more sure keepers or preservers of words and civil things than this way of Tradition is It would be needless to shew that in Writings and civil behaviour there is as great variation in some few successions of Generations for this is sufficiently known to all observing men § 3 4. He applies this to Christianity and saith So Children get by degrees notions of God Christ Saviour Hell Virtue and Vice and are shewn how to say Grace and Prayers afterwards they become acquainted with the Ten Commandments Creed Sacraments forms of Prayer and other practices of Christianity the actions and carriages of the elder guiding the younger to frame their lives to several virtues by the Doctrine delivered in words as Faith Hope Charity Prayer c To this I answer That Children do indeed by degrees learn the Notions of God c. But this Tradition alone is not that which guides them here but also the Scriptures and Ancient Writers are of great use as they inable the Teachers of the foregoing Generation to guide them more faithfully Indeed in the way of this Tradition alone some general signification of words which concern matters of Faith may probably be delivered as that God signifies him whom we are to worship reverence serve and obey and such like But more particular notions of these matters of Religion as they may be sometimes preserved aright so where is no other way of preservation than this Tradition they may be very corruptly and dangerously delivered It is certain that Noah knew the true God and taught his Children concerning him and in his daies and since their Posterity increased to great multitudes and yet having only this way of Tradition they were so far corrupted in their knowledge of God that they owned Creatures yea the lowest of Creatures for God and thereby lost the knowledge of the true God and yet even the Gentiles who worshipped other things instead of God pretended that this they received by this way of Tradition and this was their great Argument why they should not receive Christianity because their Ancestors had delivered to them that way of Worship they then used in Heathenism Clemens Alexand. in his Admonition to the Gentiles brings them in speaking thus We must not reject those things which were delivered to us from our Fathers and almost all the Fathers who write against Gentilism industriously shew the vanity of this their plea. The saying of Prayers and Grace aright depends much upon the preservation of the true Notions of God and Christ and the knowledge of Duties and Promises and therefore if there be any corruption in the delivery of those things it is like to be also in the performance of these actions of Prayer and saying Grace in which case will the carriages and practices of the elder Christians be corrupted But he sayes they learn the Creed ten Commandments and forms of Prayer The Creed is indeed a good preservative of the chief Articles of our Belief Had it not been for this Form and some other like it received in the Church which because written and in stinted words is more of kin to the way of Scripture delivery than to other delivery by Oral Tradition it is like these points of Faith might have been rejected or lost among them who only hold unto the way of that Tradition The ten Commandments are likewise a sure preservative of that which God requires in them from man but these are the words of Scripture Neither the Creed nor the ten Commandments concern the Controversie of Tradition as it is disowned by Protestants otherwise than to observe the way whereby the certainty of them is conveyed unto us and thus we do assert that we are more certain of the Creed by its being committed to Writing and comprized in a fixed form of words and being every way agreeable to Scripture than any can be by way of delivery from Father to Son only by word of mouth in all successions of Generations and the same certainty we have of the ten Commandments by their being in the Scripture Records and being likewise delivered in writing which is the way which even Papists make use of as well as others What he adds of Sacraments and forms of Prayer these are like to guide men aright where the notions of Religion concerning them are preserved intire but if there be a corruption in Religion these things as soon as others may be depraved as indeed they are in the Romish Church where though the Creed and the Commandments do deliver much truth yet are they somewhat perverted by Traditional Expositions nor can they secure from the delivery of many other corruptions In § 5. He desires us to consider How the Primitive Faithful were inured to Christianity e're the Books of Scripture were written or communicated We know this then was by the preaching of the Apostles among them who had the inspiration of God to guide them and were unerrable deliverers and yet even they in this preaching made very great use of the Books of the Old Testament to prevail with men to receive the Doctrines of Jesus But I shall further mind him that the Christians at Rome in the Primitive state of that Church before they had any written Scripture of the New Testament thought it requisite for the inuring themselves to Christianity to obtain some Writings Apostolical concerning whom Eusebius writes thus At Rome the light of Religion did so shine upon the minds of these hearers of Peter that they thought it not sufficient to content themselves with once hearing him nor with the unwritten Doctrine of the Divine preaching but with all manner of perswasions they did earnestly desire Mark who followed Peter that by writing he would leave them a memorial of that Doctrine which was then delivered to them by words nor did they desist until he did perform it and this was the cause of the writing that which is called The Gospel according to Mark. He likewise relates That when the Apostle knew what was done by the revelation of the Spirit he was pleased with the forwardness of the men and by his Authority confirmed the Writing that it might be read in the Churches
that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai yet knew not the first or second Commandment Yea after many severe judgments to shew how necessary the observation of Gods Commandments were yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges and of many of the Kings of Israel could this be for want of knowledge when the Law of God was among them which would teach them otherwise Yet if this Authour shall think it was of great ignorance this will as much destroy his way of Tradition since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand to make it knowable And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests and their serving Baalim which their Fathers taught them was of long continuance § 10. He asserts by way of Answer to an Objection That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture because setting aside Traditions help this only depends on skills judgements and fancies and not on certain sense either for the meaning or letter of Scripture Touching the letter of Scripture we set not aside the help of Tradition but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to relie on and I have in former Discourses shewed that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture both as to letter and sense Yea the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths than the sense of Tradition can be because though the words be supposed equally intelligible whether written or spoken it is more evident that the words found in Scripture are such as contain the sense of Scripture than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition Because it is certain that in many concerning points there are many things delivered by several in the Church which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions so that it will be hard if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar to understand what words in many points he may doubt of do truly express the sense of the Church unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings such as either Scriptures Canons of Catholick Councils or Liturgies or the like the former as this Authour too much rejects so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other which the Vulgar are not capable of searching Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture or by Oral and practical Tradition let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soonest close with The case is by him in this § very unfaithfully propounded Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight or upon the judgment or opinion of a thousand men for as we have shewed it is not only skill and opinion that Protestants do ground upon but delivery of Records and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of they would be the more swayed by the appearance of several persons who assert that they have heard many say that they heard many others say that they received from others and they from others by hearsaies at the fortieth or fiftieth hand or by others who shall produce plain Records and those preserved safe in several Courts which all agree in testifying it was otherwise Or if the Question be about any Legacy if the one party brings such hearsaies abovementioned and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court and evidence that in the same manner it was inrolled in several other Courts is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind But in this § 10. he further adds The Vulgar have reason to believe there was such an one as King James or Queen Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition but if you pump their common reason about the Authority of the Statute Book you shall find them at a loss Concerning King James or Queen Elizabeth they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it and that it is not capable of a mistake nor could any interest be supposed to devise this nor can mens conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition as was observed in Answer to § 7. But to put the case more like this of discovering which is more justifiable of believing Scripture or Tradition I demand whether as to all considerable actions atchievements or constitutions under these Princes it be more rational to relie on what appears in common fame concluding that nothing is considerable which was not there preserved or to apply our selves to some good Historians especially if we could be certain we could find such as had a certain knowledge of all such things and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing concerning all these things This security we have concerning the Scriptures since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith delivered to the World by Jesus Christ and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness Concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man or the Statutes by him collected they can thence conclude that as far as they can be assured that it was his Work and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge so far they are assured of this Books Authority as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgment in them who own it as such But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches that they were able and faithful and their Books faithfully written both from our Saviours approving them to dispense his Gospel and his Church receiving them as such dispensers even in these Writings and God himself bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost So that we are as sure concerning Scripture as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil made approved and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power and thereby Enacted that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England Here it would be a madness to doubt So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture but not to Oral
and sutably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Priviledges 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are intrusted to bind and continue or to loose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules and accordingly the Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I forgive it also in the Person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power is for Edification not Destruction both to the whole Church and to the Offender that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation The general result of all I have said is That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance and such persons who have a low esteem thereof if they have any reverence for their Saviour let them seriously consider whether he who is Truth and Goodness can be thought to use such high expressions in this case as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and such like to impose upon the World which he came to guide and save and upon his Church which he so dearly loves with empty sounds of great things which signify little or nothing What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook according to some Canons the strict observation of Penance Conc. Ancyr c. 16. Elib c. 2 7 47 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years and even to the end of their Life that they might obtain Absolution and the Peace of the Church and its Communion And under this severe Discipline as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis de Poenit. c. 9. they did ly in Sackcloth and Ashes they never used such Cloaths or Diet as might appear pleasant they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting Prayers and Tears crying to God day and night and among other things they made humble Supplication even upon their Knees unto the Members of the Church and fell down prostrate before its Officers it being their custom Presbyteris advolvi charis Dei adgeniculari And all this was done in the greatest degree while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power But that which they apprehended and which I doubt not to be true Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni is that as Chemnitius expresseth it Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit peccata remittit it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry viz. where they proceed according to his Will And as under the Law he who trespassed beside the amendment of his fault and restitution either in things Sacred or Civil was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering for obtaining the Mercy of God even so under the Gospel he who performs the other conditions of Christianity ought where it may be had to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin and the receiving this Testimony together with that of a good Conscience upon a Christian Penitent Deportment is next to the great Absolution by Christ the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort Only I must here add which I desire may be particularly observed that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins and other Blessings of the Gospel to them who fall not under gross enormities and the censures of the Church though performed also in its degree in Doctrine and other Benedictions and Absolutions is chiefly done by Administring the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism wherein may be obtained remission of Sins Wherefore I conceive that as that Man who being converted to Christianity doth profess the Doctrine and embrace the practice thereof in other things but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour and runs himself upon the needless hazard of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof even so is it with those adult persons who being otherwise piously disposed do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper which is particularly appointed of God to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice for remission of Sins and other blessings of the Covenant to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same And if this which to me seemeth a great Truth was duly heeded the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion and other Services of God would be as it was in the Primitive Times generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance in Persons adult and resolving upon a true Christian course of life Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom truly asserteth Chrysost in 2 Cor. 2.5 That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice and by his Ministry But the Priestly Authority according to the Romish Ordination Pontif. Rom. is chiefly placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing their Form being Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass That is properly Ordo Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9. c. 1. saith F. Layman where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchos in which as also in the Council of Trent it self Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil Trid. Sess 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders partly upon this account and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour Indeed here it must be granted and asserted that the
real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and