is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eaâ—ing blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions 178 CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sâ—fficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity p. 163 CHAP. XXVI What is to add to Gods Law What to adde to the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures the man of God perfect How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God 168 CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jewes Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiours and the Pillar of truth inferre it not 175 CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the sufficiencie 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—rnesse of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the termes which they use The limitations of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith 181 CHAP. XXXII Answer to an Objection that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation Those that make the Church Infallible cannot those that make the Scriptures â—â—ear â—nd sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures and controversies of Faith The Interest of the Church of England The pretense of Rushworthes Dialogues that we have no unquestionable Scripture and that tâ—e Tradition of the Church never changes 192 CHAP. XXXI That the Scriptures which wee have are unquestionable That mistakes in Copying are not considerable to the sense and effect of them The meaning of the Hebrew and Greek even of the Prophets determinable to the deciding of Controversies How Religion delivered by Tradition becomes subject to be corrupted 198 CHAP. XXXIV The dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chiâ—fe objections against them are questionâ—ble In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church 207 CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Originall Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Iewes 218 CHAP. XXXIV Of the ancientest Translations of the Bible into Greek first With the Authors and authority of the same Then into the Chaldee Syriack and Latine Exceptions against the Greek and the Samaritane Pentateuch They are helps never thelesse to assure the true reading of the Scriptures though with other Copies whether Jewish or Christian Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testament No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible 224 The CONTENTS of the second Book CHAP. I. TWo parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions p. 1 CHAP. II. Evidence what is the condition of the Covenant of Grace The contract of Baptism The promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to Christs not to Johns Baptism Those are made Christs Disciples as Christians that take up his Cross in Baptism The effects of Baptism according to the Apostles 5 CHAP. III. The exhortations of the Apostles that are drawn from the patterns of the Old Testament suppose the same How the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament are the same how not the same How the new Testament and the New Covenant are both one The free-will of man acteth the same part in dealing about the New-Covenant as about the Old The Gospel a Law 12 CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of catechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no Penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case 17 CHAP. V. The Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles evidenceth that some act of Mans free choice is the condition which it requireth The correspondence between the Old and New Testament inferreth the same So do the errors of Socinians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism Objections deferred 23 CHAP. VI. Justifying faith sometimes consists in believing the truth Sometimes in trust in God grounded upon the truth Sometimes in Christianity that is in imbracing and professing it And that in the Fathers as well as in the Scriptures Of the informed and formed Faith of the Schools 30 CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified do truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or justified is not justifying faith 37 CHAP. VIII The objection from S. Paul We are not justifyed by the Law nor by Works but by Grace and by Faith Not meant of the Gospel and the works that suppose it The question that S. Paul speakes to is of the Law of Moses and the workes of it He sets those workes in the same rank with the works of the Gentiles by the light of nature The civil and outward works of the Law may be done by Gentiles How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ 43 CHAP. IX Of the Faith and Justification of Abraham and the Patriarkes according to the Apostles
it may be said in some regard that the Church was before the Scriptures when as in order of reason it is evident that the truth of Christianity is supposed to the being of it inasmuch as no man can be or be known to be of the Church but as hee is or is known to be a Christian And truly those that dispute the authority of the Church to be the the reason to believe the sentence of it in mater of Faith to be true are to consider what they will say to that opinion which utterly denies any such authority any such thing as a Church Understanding the Church to be a Society founded by Gods appointment giving publick authority to some persons so or so qualified by that appointment in behalf of the whole For this all must deny that admit Erastus his opinion of Excommunication to be true if they will admit the consequence of their own doctrine Which opinion I have therefore premised in staring this Question that it may appear to require such an answer as may not suppose the being of the Church in that nature but may be a means to demonstrate it But as it is not my intent to begg so great a thing in question by proceeding upon supposition of any authority in the Church before I can prove it to be a Corporation founded with such authority as the foundation of it requireth So is it as farre from my meaning to deny that authority which I do not suppose For hee that denieth the authority of the Church to be the reason why any thing is to be taken for truth or for the meaning of the Scripture may take the due and true authority of the Church to be a part of that truth which is more ancient than the authority of the Church Inasmuch as it must be believed that God hath founded a Society of them which professe Christianity by the name of the Church giving such authority to some members of it in behalf of the whole as hee pleased before it can be believed that this or that is within the authority of the Church For that there is a Church and a publick authority in it and for it and what things they are that fall under that authority if it be true is part of that truth which our Lord and his Apostles whose authority is more ancient than the Church have declared Indeed if it were true that the first truth which all Christians are to believe and for the reason of it to believe every thing else is the saying of persons so and so qualified in the Church then were it evident that the belief of that which is questioned in religion could not be resolved into any other principle But if it be manifest by the motives of Christianity that the authority of the Apostles is antecedent to it that all Scripture and the meaning of Scripture which signifies nothing beside it own meaning and Tradition of the Apostles if any such Tradition over and above Scripture may appear is true not supposing it as appeares by the premises then is the authority of the Church no ground of Faith and so not Infallible There are indeed sundry Objections made both out of Scripture and the Fathers to weaken and to shake such an evident truth which are not here to be related till wee have resolved as well what is the reason of believing in Controversies of Faith as what is not In the mean time if wee demand by what means any person that can pretend to give sentence in Controversies of Faith knowes his own sentence to be infallible or upon what ground hee gives sentence Hee that answers by Scripture or authority of Writers that professe to have learned from the Scriptures or reasons depending on the authority of our Lord and his Apostles acknowledges the authority of the Church not to be the reason of believing For what need wee all this if it were If hee say by the same means for which these are receivable that is by revelation from God It will be presently demanded to make evidence of such revelation the same evidence as wee have for the truth of the Scriptures Which because it cannot be done therefore is this plea laid aside even by them who neverthelesse professe to imbrace the Communion of the Church of Rome because they believe the Church to be Infallible But if it be destructive to all use of reason to deny the conclusion admitting the premises then let him never hope to prevaile in any dispute that holds the conclusion denying the premises For to hold the sentence of the Church Infallible when the means that depend upon the authority of our Lord and his Apostles proves whatsoever is to be believed without supposing any such thing when revelation independent upon their authority there is acknowledged to be none averreth Infallibility in the sentence of the Church denying the onely principle that can inferre it And therefore those that speak things so inconsequent so inconsistent I shall not grant that they speake those things which themselves think and believe but rather that like men upon the rack they speak things which themselves may and in some sort do know not to be true For whosoever holds an opinion which hee sees an argument against that hee cannot resolve is really and truly upon the rack and of necessity seeks to escape by contradicting what himself confesseth otherwise Which every man of necessity doth who acknowledging the reason of believing Christianity to lye in the authority of our Lord and his Apostles challengeth neverthelesse that Infallability which is the reason of believing to all sentences of the Church the mater of which sentence if it be true the reason of it must depend immediately upon the same authority upon which the authority of the Church which sentenceth dependeth But the consequence of this assertion deserves further consideration because all that followes depends upon it Suppose that the Scriptures prove themselves to be the Word of God by the reasons of believing contained in them witnessed by the common sense of all Christians For this admits no dispute If the same consent can evidence any thing belonging to the mater of Faith that will appear to oblige the Faith of all Christians upon the same reason as the Scriptures do whether contained in the Scriptures or not For who will undertake that God could not have preserved Christianity without either Scriptures or new revelations And therefore hee chose the way of writing not as of absolute necessity but as of incomparable advantage If therefore God might have obliged man to believe any thing not delivered by writing whether hee hath or not will remain questionable supposing the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon the ground aforesaid Besides there are many things so manifest in the Scriptures that they can indure no dispute supposing the Scriptures to be the Word of God Many things are every day cleared more and more by applying the knowledg
Church For it is manifest that hitherto the authorities of Church Writers cannot be considered any otherwise than as the opinions of particular persons which no wayes import the consent of the whole Church For whereas hitherto there is nothing to oblige the Faith of any Christian but that which is plaine by the Scriptures and the consent of the Church It no wayes appears as yet how the authorities of Church Writers can evidence the consent of Church I will not therefore be curious here to heap up the sayings of the Fathers commending the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures One or two I will take notice of because they are all I can remember in which the limitation thereof to things which our salvation requires us to believe is expressed S. Augustine de doctr Christianâ— II. 9. In eis quae aperte in Scripturis posita sunt inveâ—iuntâ—r illa omnia qnae continent fideâ— moresq vivendi In those things which are plainty set down in the Scriptures is found whatsoever that Faith or maners by which wee live doth containe S. Chrysostome in II. ad Thessal Hom. III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are plain and plain and straight in the Scriptures all things that are necessary are mâ—nifest Whereunto wee may addâ— the words of Constantine to the Council of Nâ—â—â—a in Theodoreâ— Eâ—clef Hist l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets plainly teach us what wee are to think of God But I will also take notice that the same S. Augustine de doctr Christ III. 2. saith that the Rule of Faith which hee had set forth in the first book is had from the plainer places of the Scripture and the authority of the Church And the same S. Chrysostome in the same Homily sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those things which the Apostles writ and those which they delivered by word of mouth are equally credible Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church deserves credit It is a Tradition seek no more And Vincentius in the beginning of his Commâ—nitorium or Remembrance confessing the Canon of the Scriptures to be every way perfect and sufficient requires neverthelesse the Tradition of the Church for the steddy understanding of it And therefore I have just ground to say that all that is necessary to salvation is not clear in the Scriptures to all that can reade in the opinion of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine But to all that reade supposing the Rule of Faith received from the Church to bound and limit the sense and exposition of the Scriptures And therefore may more justly suppose the same limitation whâ—n they speak of the perfection and sufficience and clearnesse of the Scripture at large without confining their speech to that which the necessity of salvation requires us to believe And this is already a sufficient barr to any man that shall pretend the consent of the Church which concurreth to evidence the truth of the Scripture for the perspicuity thereof in things necessary to be believed to all whom they may concerne For so long as Tradition may be requisite besides Scripture that cannot appear When it shall appear whether requisite or not then will it appear how farr the sufficience and perspicuity of the Scripture reacheth And this I come now to inquire CHAP. VI. All interpretation of Scripture is to be confined within the Tradition of the Church This supposeth that the Church is a Communion instituted by God What means there is to make evidence of Gods Charter upon which the Corporation of the Church subsisteth The name of the Church in the Scriptures often signifieth the Whole or Cathelick Church THis presumption then which is able to prejudice the truth by disparaging the means God hath given to discover it And that by possessing men that things pretended to be necessary to salvation would have been clear of themselves to all men in the Scriptures if they were true But nothing conducing to clear the doubtfull meaning of any Scripture that is never so true This presumption I say being removed and the authority of the Church as the reason of believing taken away it remaines that wee affirm whatsoever the whole Church from the beginning hath received and practised for the Rule of Faith and maners all that to be evidently true by the same reason for which wee believe the very Scriptures And therefore that the meaning of them is necessarily to be confined within those bounds so that nothing must be admitted for the truth of them which contradicteth the same Wee saw before that the Scripture consisteth of motives to Faith and mater of Faith That in the motives of Faith supposing them sufficient when admitted for true a difficulty may be made upon what evidence they are admitted for true That the conviction of this truth consisteth in the profession and conversation of all those who from the beginning receiving Christianity have transmitted it to their successors for a Law and Rule to their beliefs and conversations Wherefore there can remain no further question concerning the truth of that which stands recommended to us by those same means that evidence the truth of those 〈◊〉 for which wee receive Christianity Had there been no 〈◊〉 Christianity to have been read in the profession and practice of all that call themselves Christians it would not have been possible to convince the enemies of Christianity that wee are obliged to believe the Scriptures If the professing and practising things so contrary to the interest of flesh and bloud be an â—vidence that they are delivered and received from them who first showed reasons to believe It must first remain evident that there are certain things that were so professed and practised from the beginning before it can be evident that the motives upon which they are said to be received were indeed tendred to the world for that purpose This is that common stock of Christianity which in the first place after receiving the Scriptures is to be admitted for the next principle toward the settling of truth controverted concerning the meaning of them as flowing immediately from the reason for which they are received and immediately flowing into the evidence that can be made of any thing questionable in the same It is that sound ingredient of nature which by due application must either cure all distempers in the Church or leave them incurable and everlasting And truly if it were as easie to make evidence what those things are which have been received professed and practised from the beginning by the whole Church as it is necessary to admit all such for truth I suppose there would remain no great difficulty in admitting this principle But in regard it is so easie to show what contradiction hath been made within the pale of the Church to that which elsewhere otherwhiles hath been received I cannot tell whether men despaire to finde any thing generally received
use till the Rescripts of the Pope took place and excluded the Canons of the whole Church The succession of which Law is so visible that hee that may say that the order presently in force can no way agree with that which was established by the Apostles shall not have the face to asfirm that there never was any order established by the Apostles instead of it so visible shall the impressions be of that corruption by which it declines from the order first established by the Apostles And therefore I allege here in the last place the consent of those of the Reformation who in answering this objection when it is argued that therefore Tradition is necessary as well as Scripture do not deny that there was a Rule of Faith that there were Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles to preserve the Unity of the Church But to answer for themselves why they stand not to the present Church of Rome in them do allege That the Rule of Faith delivered the Church by word of mouth is also delivered by writing and contained in the Scriptures Tnat the Rules of good order which the Apostles delivered were never intended to be unchangeable as you may heare Tertullian say de Velandis Virginibus cap. I. For in making this answer they do acknowledge that the Church had a Rule of Faith which it had received for a Law from the Apostles and therefore delivered for a Law to all that became Christians But whether this Rule be contained in the Scriptures or not concernes not my present purpose seeing it will be as much the cognizance of Christians and foundation of the Society and Corporation of the Church tending to maintain unity in the profession and exercise of Christianity whether so or otherwise Onely no man will deny that it may be not so easie to discern by the Scriptures alone what belongs to it what not as it may appear to be by the Churches delivering of it Nor do I pretend here that the orders delivered by the Apostles are all unchangeable For who knoweth not that the Lawes of every Common-wealth do change from age to age the state of Government remaining the same because those rights in which Soveraignty consisteth remain the same And therefore it is enough for my purpose that the Church had certain orders regulating the proceeding thereof in maters wherein it is to communicate as well under the Apostles as in succeeding ages Nor requiring that they should be alwaies the same but that they should come alway from the same power which they left in the Church that so the Body may appear to continue alwaies one and the same And that I proceed to prove by showing that the power of those publick persons which did alwaies act in behalf of the Church in admitting into and excluding out of the Church whereby those Laws were in force and wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth is derived from our Lord by the act of his Apostles CHAP. VIII That the Power of Governing the whole Church was in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and those whom they took to assist them in the parts of it The Power of their Successors must needs be derived from those Why that Succession which appeares in one Church necessarily holdeth all Churches The holding of Councils evidenceth the Vnity of the Church FOr this I must presume of in the first place That as the Church is and was to be the true spiritual Israel of God when his ancient people departed from him by refusing the Gospel So to signifie this did our Lord chuse out XII Apostles and LXX Disciples answerable to the XII Princes of Tribes and the LXX Elders which with Moses were to govern Gods ancient people Neither do I mervail that wee finde in the Scriptures no further use made of these LXX no further power exercised by them under that title The difference between Gods ancient and new people appearing straight after our Lords Ascension and making that order uselesse for the future For Israel dwelling all in one Land might easily be governed by one Soveraign Court in maters of the Law answerable in power to that of Moses and his LXX Elders But Christianity being to be dispersed all over the world those LXX with our Lord chose for his present service could not serve for the like purpose in time to come It is therefore enough that the number of them signifies unto us the foresaid purpose their office for the time to come being swallowed up in the offices of the rest of our Lords Disciples besides the XII Apostles remaining alwaies the Judges of the XII Tribes of Israel here and in the world to come I am sensible that some both of our Presbyterians and Independents have been nibbling at this point as if they had a minde if they durst to say That the Apostles had no authority in the Church but as writers of Scriptures As for the Goverment of the Church that the people or their buckram Elders were to give them checkmate in it But having met with this pretense in another place and heard no man open his mouth to maintain it I shall at present rest content to have showed afore that their authority is the ground of the authority of their writings here that their Traditions were Law to the Church and that by their writings which mention not so much as what the Traditions were Whereby it appears that they took place as acts of their perpetual authority over the Church not as revelations of Gods will sent by those Epistles wherein sometimes they are not so much as named Besides the Apostles then at such time as the Church of Jerusalem contained all Christendome as I observed afore you have mention of the Elders at Jerusalem Acts XI 30. XV. 2 4 6 22 23. And again after the propagation of Christianity XXI 18. Of leading men also among the brethren who were also Prophets Doctors and Evangelists XV. 22 32 35. These then had not their commission from the Apostles because other disciples as well as the XII received at our Lords own hands the power of remitting sins by the Holy Ghost John XX. 18-23 But there was never yet any doubt made that their authority was limitable by the Apostles because of the eminence of the XII among the Disciples And therefore hee that would say that the LXX were contained in the number of those Elders and Leaders could no more be contradicted then some of the Ancient Fathers can be contradicted in reporting that some of them were of the number of the VII that were chosen to assist the Apostles Acts VI. S. Paul further rehearsing the graces that our Lord hath granted for the edification of his Church reckoneth Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Doctors Eph. IV. 11. 1 Cor. XII 28. Now it is the whole Church that the Apostle speaks of here as I observed afore and therefore the authority here mentioned extendeth to the whole Church But
it is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
when wee see persons authorized in behalf of their particular Churches do an act which shall oblige those respective Churches For by the same reason persons authorized on behalf of all Churches shall be able to do an act that shall oblige all Churches Which is all that I claim when I maintain that by Gods Law all Churches are to make one Church When Matthias was Ordained an Apostle in stead of Judas I demand why that Assembly of Apostles and Disciples at which this was done should not be counted a General Council having showed that this Church of Jerusalem was then the whole Church and the creating of an Apostle whom all were to acknowledge in that quality for the future being an act concerning the Whole I will not say that the act of creating the seven Acts VI. concerned the whole Church being content that it remaine in question whether the intent of it were such or not But in as much as those that do not allow that they intended to create an Order of Deacons which all Churches were to make use of afterwards do not question that if they did intend it the whole Church must needs stand obliged by it I am not afraid to reckon this Assembly also in the rank of General Councils As for that of Acts XV. it appeareth sufficiently that those who founded the Church of Antiochia had their first commission from the Apostles not onely by the first preaching of the Gospel there and the sending of Barnabas Acts XI 19-26 but chiefly in that those which taught the necessity of observing Moses Law are disowned as having no commission so to teach Acts XV. 24. For as for S. Paul who challengeth an immediate commission from our Lord Gal. I. 1. it is easily granted because hee was made an Apostle Yet in that hee allegeth the verifying of it to S. Peter and S. James and the Churches of Judaea who having never seen his face glorified God for him Gal. I. 18-24 in that hee is brought by Barnabas who acted by commission from the Apostles to Antiochia and upon this beginning was sent by the Holy Ghost that is by Prophesie to do the office of an Apostle with Barnabas Acts XII 1 2 3. in that hee is owned by the Apostles afterwards Acts XV. 12. Gal. II. 1 7-10 which makes it more than probable that both these Texts speak of one and the same time of S. Pauls coming to Jerusalem in these regards I say it appeares sufficiently that the Church was to own him for an Apostle upon the owning his immediate calling from heaven by the rest of the Apostles Wherefore when wee see those that were trusted on behalf of the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which had been founded by those that were sent by the Holy Ghost from thence resort to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem for an end of the difference in debate well may I with those that have gone afore mee reckon this meeting among the General Councils the cause of it concerning the whole no part concerned that it obliged not I will not say so much of the meeting of S. Paul with S. James Acts XXI 18. though the Elders there mentioned are thought to be those that had the chief authority in the neighbouring Churches as well as in that of Jerusalem And though S. Paul by this time was become rhe Head of many more Churches of his own foundation than afore Because of the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles and the founding of other Churches by this time which could not be tied by the result of this meeting further than the mater of it was inforced by the decree formerly made of which among the Apostles there ought no doubt to be made Let no man expect that I inferre upon these premises that the Church is bound by a positive Law of God to call Councils and to decide all emergencies by the vote of them much lesse that it is not able to do this otherwise I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common service of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needes maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common service of God and the unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it but especially that profession which it supposeth But I intend not therefore to tye the Church to inflame persecution by holding such Assemblies as may give occasion of sinister suspicions to secular Powers that protect not Christianity when the effect of such Assemblies is to be obtained without assembling For whosoever they be that ought to be authorized in behalf of particular Churches to constitute a Council they can have no other authority than their respective Churches do challenge It cannot be imagined that being present in one place together and seeing one anothers faces can purchase them that authority which they cannot have at home to conclude the whole by the consent of the Council The presence of Representatives affords infinite opportunities of better information one from another by debate one with another which distance of place allowes not otherwise But yet in maters concerning the state of the Whole or any great part of it means of information for the maintenance of that confederacy wherein I maintain the Society of the Church to stand is to be had by daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives which wee call Councils A thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils is a way of farre greater dispatch but the expresse consent of Churches obtained upon the place is a more certain foundation of peace in regard of the many questions that may arise as well in the discharge of that trust which Representatives are charged with as in the respect allowed their votes by the Council As it may easily appear by the difficulties that have risen about executing the decrees of Councils And therefore the power of them is meerly derivâ—tive from their respective Churches tending to supply those difficulties of bringing the whole to agreement which distance of place createth That therefore which I allege here is this That the succession of Pastors alleged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceed wholey upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole Which is the true reason of
the visibility of the Church and the assurance that every particular Christian might have during this intelligence and correspondence that holding communion with his own Pastor hee held the true Faith together with the Unity of the Catholick Church Neither putting trust in man which God curseth nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures but trusting his own common sense as well for the means of conveying to him the mater as the motives of Christianity For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian for S. Augustine and Optatus to allege the Church of Rome and the succession from the Apostles for evidence that the Faith of those Hereticks was contrived by themselves that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church Because supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding other Churches founded and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof the people to stand bound rather to follow the original consent of the whole from whence they received their Christianity than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole in the judgment of the whole This being the true ground for the authority of Councils might and did take effect without assembling of Councils S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome to write to the Churches of Gaule to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles because hee had joyned with the Novatians To the Spanish Bishops owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places notwithstanding that upon false suggestions they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them Epist LXV LXVI Could any man in his right senses have attempted this had it not been received among Christians which hee alleges that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors whom the communion of the Church disowneth whether assembled in Council or not The acts of Councils themselves such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis depending upon the authority of the Churches of Rome and Carthage that concurred not to them in presence If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time For if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once without any obligation to the resolution of other Congregations then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation that the ruling part of them cannot faile Or rathâ—r into that which hee hath of himself and of the Spirit of God guiding his choice to those that shall not faile They presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God without declaring what Christianity they professe for the condition upon which they obtain it need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth God who requireth the profession of a true Faith in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit hath provided the communion of his Church for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth That it is presumption in them to oversee this no imposture in the Church to challenge it Tertullians reason determines The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them To this after other allegations hee sets his rest up on this one that error is infinite truth one and the same That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake in which all Christians agree They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church provided by God to preserve and propagate it against our Independent Congregations Thus Tertullian de Praescript XXVIII There have been some Disputers of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception against the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome Hee pleadeth not that the Catholicks ought not but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures being able to condemne them without the Scriptures And they plead that the Reformation not standing to those Pastors whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles may be condemned without Scripture as not holding the truth who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors Which is to demand of those of the Reformation for an end of all debates first to acknowledge those Pastors and that which they teach then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture which that which they reach alloweth or requireth But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infallible ground for the truth of that which it determineth And therefore to be accepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity or the Scriptures Which I showed you already to be false It shall therefore suffice mee to say that those men consider not the difference between the plea of the Reformation and that of those Hereticks For they acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth where they served their turn made no scruple to say when it was for their purpose that they knew not the depth of Gods minde which themselves by some secret way having attained to know were therefore called Gnosticks That they imparted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike when that served their turne That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect and revealed not that secret whereby they promised their salvation but by incklings These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript XXII and Irenaeus III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles Whereas those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do Without cause indeed For what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret to them and by them who tender no evidence for it to that which the visibility of Christianity and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles or their writings nor can expect salvation by any other meanes And therefore are manifestly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides provided the trial
clearly all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians it will not hurt my opinion to inferre That because it is unlawful to adde any thing to Moses Law by saying that it is and ought to be part of it when it is not nor ought to be therefore it is unlawfull to adde any thing to the Bible by saying that it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians though not written there For this my opinion sayes not And truly I must here alledge that Gods Law Deut. XVII 8 -12 provideth a power in that people to resolve and determine all things which the peace and unity of that people requireth to be determined And that for the effect of this power we have to show all the constitutions and determinations whereby the precepts of Moses Law are limited how they are to be observed which we find recorded in the Jews Talmud and all the disputes and debates that have ended in those determinations In as much as we have to allegde that our Lord in the Gospell hath commanded to hear the Scribes and Pharisees as those that sit in Moses Chair For those constitutions derive their Pedigree from those that were in force in our Lords time by the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees as it appears to all that compare them with the particulars mentioned in the Scriptures in Philo and Iosephus For though the particulars be not alwaies the same because time produces continual charge in particular custome yet there is agreement enough to show that it was successively the same authority that made such orderly and moderate changes as the state of the time might require or mens fancies imagine in the practise of their Law Whereby it is evident that the power of so interpreting the Law being established by the Law cannot be against the Law as forbidden by it And this abundantly enough for the justifying of that which I have said For the interpretation and limitation of the Precepts of the Law by the tradition left with Moses and by the Authority setled in the Synagogue being established by the Law cannot be counted an addition to the Law Therefore the interpretation of the Scriptures by Tradition left the Church by the Apostles and the limitation of the circumstances which the service of God is to be regulated with by the Authority setled in the Church cannot be counted an addition to Gods new Law or to the Scriptures of the New Testament But because the satisfaction of the Reader in the true intent of these precepts of the Law requires more I shall say further That I conceive that God providing a power requisite to determine all circumstances which the practice of the Law should require repeats neverthelesse a caution of adding to or taking from the Law that it might not be thought that this Power extended to alter any thing in the worship of the one true God which all the precepts of the Law tended to limite Surely in the Text of Deut. XII 32. this caution followes immediately upon warning given not to worship God by any of those Ceremonies with which the Gentiles honoured their false Gods the reason whereof is plain least by using the like ceremonies the honour of those false Gods to whom they were tendred by those that believed in them might be admitted Whereupon when it is inferred that nothing be added to or taken from those precepts by which the Law commandeth to serve the true God it is manifest how well the limitation of circumstances questionable in the practice of the Law stands with this caution so soon as it appears that the precepts thereof cannot be practised till so limited And upon the same caution Deut. IV. 2. he inferres immediately Thine eyes have seen what the Lord did to those that served Baal-peor now they are dead and thou alive this day As supposing this consequence That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should seduce them from his Laws Not this That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should perswade them to practice the precepts of his worship in that sorm which the power appointed by him should determine So that both Texts prepress upon them the precepts of the Law as those whereby the worship of the true God is distinguished not as if of themselves they contained mater to oblige that people or to procure them happiness And surely the determinations of their Elders as they concur to the same ends so are they inforced by the same obligation which the precepts themselves produce And therefore it will not be amiss to take notice how far the Jews who acknowledge all that I say of limiting the Law are from thinking it to be contradicted by these Scriptures Solomon Jarchi upon Deut. VI. 2. Thou stalt not adde As for example to the five Sections in the Phylacteries to the five kinds in the banquet which we cary at the feast of Tabernacles to the five Thrummes in the Fringes And so when he sayes Thou shalt not take away They are commanded by the Law to wear frontlets upon them to put them in remembrance of the precepts thereof Ex. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 18. to carry in their hands and to walk with a Bush made up of the branches of severall trees at the feast of Tabernacles Levit. XXIII 40. to put a fringe to the corners of their Garments made of a thred of Hyacinth among others Numb V. 38. 39. But that those frontlets should contain five Sections of the Law no more that those fringes should consist of four kinds besides the Hyacinth which are the determinations of their Elders these according to his opinion they are as much forbidden to adde to as to take from that which is determined by the leter of the Law Abenezra seems to be more sober upon the same place Thou shalt not adde saith he Of your own conceit as thinking the worship of God to consist in it For believing that they vow to worship one God alone and that no passive acts which the light of nature injoyneth not can be esteemed the worship of God of themselves but in the doing of them is the keeping of that Law which appoints them it is one thing to worship God as the precepts of the Law determined by that Power which it appoints do injoyn another thing to introduce rules of worshipping God not by virtue of his Law but upon a mans own conceit And therefore it is forbidden them to inquire after the fashions by which the Gentiles worshipped their Gods Deut. XII 30. as a presumption that he which should say that he would worship God as they did their Idols had a mind to worship their Idols in stead of God otherwise he would rest content with that way of worshipping God which the Law had prescribed Whereupon the Jews determine that there are four Ceremonies which who so does to any thing but to God alone must be understood to worship it
The Word shines upon all and is hid to none saith Clemens to the Gentiles But it is enough for his purpose that they may be convinced of Christianity whether the Scriptures contain it clearly to all understandings or not Tertullian prescribeth that when once wee believe wee are to believe that wee have nothing else to believe because the Gnosticks pretended secrets which our common Christianity they confessed contained not Claudius Apollinaris is afraid that our common Christianity might be thought unperfit if hee should write against Montanus And does not Christians writing one against another cast a mark of imperfection upon it in the opinion of unbelievers though Christians ought to know that God is not tyed to prevent offenses Assuredly the Gospel of which hee speaks is neither any one Gospel nor all four Nor can the word Gospel signifie either the New Testament alone or the Old and New both Nor could hee be thought to adde to them by expounding them and thereby maintaining the Church Therefore hee inferrs a good consequence that because it is forbidden to adde to or take from the Law therefore our common Christianity is not unperfit nor ought wee to do that whereby it may seem unperfit Now as for the sayings alleged out of S. Austine that import as much as the words which wee had afore Ego Evangelio non crederem having showed what is the effect and intent of them I shall not be very solicitous to show how all that is said to the same effect is answered For as there is no head so hard that cannot distinguish between the authority of the Church as it is a visible Body of men that could never have been cozened into the beliefe of Christianity upon pretended motives whether sufficient or not and as it is supposed by Christians to be a Body founded by God So is there no heart so hardned with prejudice as to refuse this demand That the authority of the Church as the Church presupposes the truth of Christianity and therefore proves it not And by consequence no truth that Christianity either containeth or inferreth Which being admitted if any thing be ascribed to the Church which seems not to suppose any part of Christian truth it must be referred to the authority and credit of the Church as a visible Body of men moving others to imbrace the Christian Faith For though this credit contribute to the making of those men Christians which are won to the Church already setled and so the Church is the Church before they are Christians Yet is the ground and reason which makes the Church a Body founded by God to wit the profession of Christianity more ancient in order of reason and nature than the being of the Church And upon supposition of this ground that is that the Church hath true reasons as well as sufficient to believe proceeds all that authority of the Church which S. Austine allegeth to the Manichees upon so high terms that hee would not believe were hee not moved by it to believe Neither was it the authority of the Church vested in the rest of the Apostles that gave S. Paul the authority of an Apostle over the Church though I have said afore that all the authority which the Church can ever have was in the Apostles and disciples of our Lord for the time And though it is manifest that S. Paul could not have had the Authority of an Apostle over the Church had he not been owned by the rest of the Apostles but the Authority of our Lord Christ in the Apostles of the same effect in obliging the Church to receive S. Paul for an Apostle as to receive that which they preached for the Faith Nor is the mater much otherwise in the receiving of any Scripture for Canonital For neither can any mans writing be owned for Canonical Scripture not supposing his person owned by the Apostles And his authority being so owned is necessarily before any authority of the Church and the very being of it That some Scriptures may be received in some Churches and not in others is not because any Church can have authority to reject that which another is bound to receive but because some Church may not know that some Scripture comes from a man so owned by the Apostles though another may know it and yet be a Church and salvation be had in the communion of it such knowledg depending meerly upon evidence in point of fact And therefore the act of the Church in listing the Scripture hath no authority but that which the presumption of such evidence createth As for the rest of that which is alleged for the authority of the Church if S. Jerome resolve to stand to the Church of Rome it is not because hee takes the sentence thereof to be infallible but because hee had reason to presume that it were in vain for an Angel in heaven to preach any other Faith to it than that which once had been received Nor doth S. Cyprian make the not believing the Popes infallibility the sourse of all Heresie and Schism but the neglect of authority derived from the Apostles upon the Heads of particular Churches in the consent of whom the visibility of the true Faith and Church both consisteth For it is meer slight of hand to take the Rock which the Gates of Hell vanquish not in S. Austine for the Church of Rome because hee spoke of it in the words next afore Being meant of the Vine which hee had speech of a little afore that to wit the Christianity which our Lord Christ preacheth For in S. Bernards time I grant the stile was changed and it might passe for good doctrine to say That the Faith cannot suffer any failleur in the Church of Rome As for all those passages of the Fathers which are alleged in recommendation whether of Tradition for the Rule of Faith or of Traditions which are the Lawes of the Church they are all mine own They cannot serve the turn of any opinion but that which I pretend That the Tradition of the Church witnessed and evidenced by the continual exercice and practice of the Church extant in the records of the Church not constituted and created by any expresse act of those that have authority in behalf of the Church as it giveth bounds to the interpretation of the Scripture in such things as concern the Rule of Faith So it discovereth what Lawes the Church received from the Apostles and by consequence what is agreeable and consequent to the intent of the same in future times according to the difference between that and the present state of the Church Let those things therefore which have been produced here be added to that which I alleged in the beginning to make evidence for the Corporation of the Church from the Lawes given it by the Apostles Irenaus shall serve both for the authority of the Scripture antecedent to the authority of the Church and for the Tradition of the Church bounding
the sense of it For if the same Faith which first was preached was afterwards committed to writing by the Apostles and how should those Christians which had not the use of leters be saved otherwise then was it the authority of the Apostles acknowledged by them that found themselves tyed to be Christians which made the Faith to oblige whether delivered by writing or without it The consent of all Churches in the same Rule of Faith serving for evidence of the Apostles act in delivering the same to the Churches Nor can any further reason be demanded why that knowledg which the Gnosticks prerended to have received by secret wayes should be refuted than the want of this And therefore it is in vain to allege that as they scorned the Scripture so they alleged Tradition for this secret knowledge The Tradition which they alleged being secret and such as could not be made to appear But no lesse contradictory to the Tradition of the Church than to the Scriptures both infallibly witnessed by the consent of all Churches And hereupon I leave the sayings of S. Austine setting aside the authority of the Council of Nicaea and affirming that former General Councils may be corrected by later without answer As also the sayings of them who affirm the Faith which our Lord hath taught to be the rock upon which the Church is built For if no building can lay that foundation upon which it standeth then cannot the Church make mater of Faith being founded upon it And that authority which may be set aside or corrected can be no infallible ground of Faith It is true it is pleaded that though in the Church of Rome there be some that do believe that the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith that is to make such determinations in maters of Faith as shall oblige all men to believe them as much as they are obliged to believe all that which comes from our Lord by his Apostles Others that do believe onely that the Church is able to evidence what the Apostles delivered to the Church and that this evidence is the ground whereon particular persons are to rest that whatsoever is so evidenced was indeed so delivered by the Apostles yet both these agree in one and the same reason of believing both of them alleging the Tradition of the Apostles to the Church for the ground of their Faith But this is more than any man of reason can believe unlesse wee allow him that affirms contradictories to ground himself upon one part of the contradiction which the other part of it destroyes For seeing that there must be but one reason one ground upon which we believe all that we believe and that it is manifest that those Articles of Faith which the determination of the Church creates being not such by any thing which that determination supposes are believed to be such meerly in consideration of the authority of the Church that determines them By consequence the Scripture and whatsoever is held to be of Faith upon any ground which the authority of the Church createth is no mater of Faith but by the authority of the Church determining that it be held for such On the other side hee that allowes Tradition to be the reason why hee believes the Christian Faith necessarily allowes all that hee allowes to be mater of Faith not onely to be true but to be mater of Faith before ever the Church determine it So that allowing him to say that hee holds his Faith by Tradition hee must allow mee that hee contradicts himself whensoever hee takes upon him to maintain that the Church creates new Articles of Faith which were not so the instant before the determination of the Church CHAP. XXXII Answer to an Objection that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation Those that make the Church Infallible cannot those that make the Scripture clear and sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures and Controversies of Faith The Interest of the Church of England The pretense of Rushworthes Dialogues that wee have no unquestionable Scripture and that the Tradition of the Church never changes AS little shall I need to be troubled at any reason that may be framed against this resolution having answered the prejudice that seems to sway most men to apprehend that God must have been wanting to his Church if all things necessary to salvation be not clearly laid down in the Scriptures For it is very manifest that the very same presumption possesses the mindes of the adverse party that God must needs have provided a visible Judge infallible in deciding all Controversies of Faith Whether the Church or any person or persons authorized in behalf of the Church for the present all is one I shall therefore onely demand that it be considered first that God was no way tied either to send our Lord Christ or to give his Gospel which because it comes of Gods free grace is therefore called the Word of his Grace and the Covenant of Grace Then that hee hath not found himself obliged to provide effectual means to bring all mankinde to the knowledge of it resting content to have provided such as if men be not wanting to their own salvation and the salvation of the rest of mankinde may be sufficient to bring all men to the knowledg of it And when it is come to knowledg all discreet Christians notwithstanding must acknowledg that the motives thereof fully propounded though abundantly sufficient to reasonable persons yet do not constrain those that are convicted by them to proceed according to them as necessary reasons constrain all understandings that see them to judg by them For how should it be a trial of mens dispositions if there were no way to avoid the necessity of those motives that inforce it Now if any knowledg can be had of truth in maters of faith that become disputable it must all of necessity depend upon the sufficiency of those motives which convict men to imbrace the Christian Faith And if there be any such skill as that of a Divine among Christians of necessity all of it proceeds upon supposition of the said motives which not pretending to show the reason of things which they convict men to believe convict them notwithstanding to believe that they are revealed by God For what conviction can there be that this or that is true unlesse it may appear to fall under those motives as the means which God hath imployed so to recommend it Therefore can it not be reasonable to require a greater evidence to the truth of things disputable among Christians than God hath allowed Christianity it self which being supposed on all hands it remains questionable whether this or that be part of it Therefore can it not be presumed that God hath made the Scriptures clear in all points necessary to salvation to all understandings concerned or that hee hath
destructive to their particular salvation within that compasse neither will their fall be imputable to the Church but to themselves if they do But neither shall this difficulty be so great an inconvenience in our common Christianity nor so insuperable as it seems to those that are loth to be too much troubled about the world to come For I never found that God pretendeth to give or that it is reason hee should give those means for attaining that truth by which wee must be saved which it should not lye within the malice of man to render difficult for them to compasse whom they concern I finde it abundantly enough for his unspeakable goodness and exactly agreeable with those means whereby hee convicteth the world of the truth of Christianity that hee give those whom it concerns such means to discern the truth of things in debate as being duly applyed are of themselves sufficient to create a resolution as certain as the weight of the mater in debate shall require And such I maintain the Scripture to be containing the sense of it within those bounds which the Rule of Faith and the Lawes given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles do limit For what is more obvious than to discern what the whole Body of the Church hath agreed in what not what is manifestly consequent to the same what not what is agreeable to the ground and end of those Lawes which the Church first received from our Lord and his Apostles what not Let prejudice cast what mists of difficulties it can before the light which God hath given his Church to discover the truth hee that stands out of their way shall discern much more art used to obscure than to discern it Neither is there any reason why it is so hard to make it discernable to all that are concerned but the unreasonable prejudices either of the force of humane authority in mater of Faith and the extent of Tradition beyond the Rule of Faith or that the consent of the whole Church may as well come from Antichrist as from the Apostles If the records of the Church were handled without these prejudices lesse learning than this age shows in other maters might serve to evidence the consent of â— Church in more controversies than wee have to those that would be content to rest in the Scripture expounded according to the same But if the Church that is those that uave right in behalf of the Church being perswaded of a sacrilegious privilege of Infallibility shall take upon them to determine truths in debate to limit Lawes to the Church without respect to this Rule which if they respect they manifestly renounce the privilege of their Infallibility I mervail not that God suffers his people to be tried with such difficulties whose sins I doubt deserve this tryal But then I say further that it is not the providence of God that is the means which hee hath provided to resolve men in debates of Christianity but it is the malice of man that makes that means uneffectual which God hath made sufficient I must now answer an envious objection that this resolution is not according to the positions of those that professe the Reformation with us To which I will speak as freely as to the rest having profess'd my self utterly assoiled of all faction and respect of mens persons to way against the means of finding the truth and for that reason devested even the Fathers of the Church of all authority which their merits from Christianity have purchased to hear what their testimonies argue in point of Historical truth I say then first that may saying no way prejudices the intent and interest of the Reformation whatsoever insufficience it may charge the expressions of Reformers with I know the worst that can be alleged in this point is that Luther in appealing from the Pope and Council called by him to a Council that should judg meerly by the Scriptures first framed this Controversie between the Scriptures and the Church which since hath been alwaies in debate so that hee which will not be tried by the Scriptures alone plainly seems to quit the party and give up the game Who has this imagination though never to apparent let mee desire him to go a little higher to the first commencing of the plea about Indulgences For there can be nothing more manifest than this That when those that undertook that cause against Luther found that the present practice of the Church could not be derived from any thing recorded in the Scripture they were forced to betake themselves to the authority of the Church not that which consisteth in testifying the faith once delivered but in creating that which never was of force untill the exercice of it Here let all the world judg for I am confident the case is so plain that all the world may judg in it whether Luther had any Interest to demand that the Scripture alone should be heard in opposition to the Tradition received from the beginning by the Church tending as I have said to nothing but to limit the meaning of the Scripture Or that his Interest required him to protest that the truth for which hee stood was not to be liable to the Sentence of the present Church And therefore when afterwards hee appealed to a Council which should pronounce by the Scriptures alone if this tend to exclude those means which are subordinate to the attaining of the meaning of the Scriptures I do utterly deny that it can be understood so to be meant by any man that would not defeat his own enterprize And therefore that it must be understood to exclude onely the authority of the present Church so farre as it proceeds not upon supposition of those grounds whereupon the Church is to pronounce For what hinders the sentence of the Church to be infallible not of it self alone but as it proceeds upon those means which duely applied produce a sentence that is infallible And truly were not his plea so to be understood all his Followers Melancthan Chemnitius and others who have written Volumes to show how their profession agrees with that of the Catholick Church should have taken pains to commit a very great inconsequence For as I have argued that those who maintain the Infallibility of the present Church do contradict themselves whensoever they have recourse either to the Scripture or to any Records of the Church to evidence the sense of the Scripture in that which otherwise they professe the authority of the Church alone infallibly to determine So those that will have the Scripture alone to determine all Controversies of Faith and yet take the pains to bring evidence of the meaning thereof from that which hath been received in the Church may very well be said to take pains to contradict themselves Some of our Scottish Presbyterians have observed that the Church of England was reformed by those that had more esteem of Melancthon than of Calvin and
Christianity as the corruption of it Surely he that considers not amiss will finde that it was a great ease to them that were convinced to acknowledg a God above them to imagine the name and honor of this God to rest in something of their own choice or devising which being set up by themselves reason would they should hope to please and have propitious by such obedience and service as they could allow Correspondently God having given the Jewes a Law of such precepts as might be outwardly performed without inward obedience whosoever believe the most difficult point of Gods service to be the submission of the heart will finde it a gain that hee can perswade himself of Gods peace without it whatsoever trouble whatsoever cost hee be at for that perswasion otherwise If then there be in mans nature a principle of Paganism and Judaism notwithstanding that men cannot be at quiet till by imbracing a religion they think they are at peace with God Is it a strange thing that they who have attained the truth of Christianity should entertain a perswasion of peace with God upoâ— terms really inconsequent to or inconsistent with the true intent of it Surely if wee reflect upon the motives of it and the motives of them it cannot seem strange I have said and it is manifest that the nature of Christianity though sufficient yet were purposely provided not to be constraining that the effect of them might be the trial of those dispositions that should be moved therewith And is it a mervail that means to perswade those that have received Christianity that things inconsistent with that which was first delivered are indeed consequent to the same should be left among those that professe that they ought to receive nothing but what was first delivered by our Lord and his Apostles I say nothing now of renouncing Christianity while men professe this for I confesse and insist that while men do believe that there is a society of men visible by the name of the Church it will not be possible for them to forget their whole Christianity or to imbrace the contrary of it But I say that notwithstanding the profession of receiving Christianity from our Lord and his Apostles the present Church may admit Lawes whether of belief or of Communion inconsistent with that which they received at first I allege further that so long as all parts of the Church held free intercourse and correspondence with one another it was a thing either difficult or altogether impossible to bring such things either into the perswasion or practice of all parts of it according to the difficulty of bringing so great a body to agree in any thing against which any part might protest with effect And this held not onely before the Church was ingraffed into the State of the Romano Empire but also so long after as this accessory help of Christianity did not obscure and in the end extinguish the original intercourse and correspondence of the Church For then it grew both possible and easie for them who had the Secular Power on their side to make that which the authority thereof was imployed to maintain to passe for Tradition in the Church Seeing it is manifest that in the ordinary language of Church Writers Tradition signifies no lesse that which the Church delivers to succeeding ages than that which it received from the Apostles Adde hereunto the opinion of the authority of the Church truly pretended originally within the true bounds but by neglecting the due bounds of the truth of Christianity which it supposeth infinitely extended to all States which Powermay have interest to introduce For if it be not impossible to perswade those who know they have received their Christianity upon motives provided by God to convince the judgments and consciences of all that see them to imbrace those things to which the witnesse of them may be applyed that they are to imbrace whatsoever either the expresse act or the silent practice of the Church inforces whether the motives of Faith be applicable to them or not Then is it not impossible to perswade them any thing which this Power shall think to be for their Interest to perswade For no mans Interest it can be to go about to perswade the world that expresse contradictories are both true at once And if it were not impossible that the imaginations of most of them that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome should be so imbroyled with the equivocation of this word Church as not to distinguish the Infallible authority thereof as a multitude of men not to be deceived in testifying the truth from the authority of it as a Body constituted upon supposition of the same Shall it not be easie for those who can obtain a reputation of the World that their act is to oblige the whole Church to obtain of the same to make no difference between that which is presently decreed and that which was originally delivered by the Apostles The said difference remaining disputable not onely by any text of Scripture but by any record of historical truth testifying the contrary to have passed for truth in any other age or part of the Church Upon these premises I do appeal to the common sense of all men to judge whether the Church professing to hold nothing but by Tradition from the Apostles may not be induced to admit that as received from the Apostles which indeed never was delivered by the Apostles For when the Socinians pretend that the Faith of the Trinity of the Incarnation and Satisfaction of our Lord Christ not being delivered by the Apostles in their writings crept into the Church as soon as they were dead they still maintain that nothing is to be admitted but what comes from our Lord and his Apostles But upon their supposition that Antichrist came into the Church as soon as they were dead are obliged to renounce all that can be pretended to come by Tradition and in that very next age Which I yield and insist that whosoever shall consider the intercourse and correspondence visibly establisht by the Apostles between all parts of the Church shall easily perceive to be a contradiction to common sense But when so much difference is visible between the State of the Church in several ages and what change hath succeeded in things manifest to inferre what may have succeeded in things disputable Hee must have his minde well and thoroughly possessed with prejudice to the utter renouncing of common sense that can indure a demand so contrary to all appearance to be imposed upon his common sense The same I say to the other demands of certain and sensible distances of time which they that see the end of may be certainly assured what was received at the beginning of them and so by mean distances this age what was held by the Apostles Of the like time for blotting out the remembrance of the truth as for introducing falshood For it is evidently true that
that they were inspired by Gods Spirit or that the authors thereof ever spoke by the same And with this resolution the testimonies of Ecclesiastical writers will agree well enough if wee consider that to prove them to have the testimony of the Church to be inspired by God it is not enough to allege either the word or the deed either of Writers or Councils alleging the authority of them or calling them Holy Divine or Canonical Scriptures Nothing but universal consent making good this testimony which the dissent of any part creates an exception against For if those to whom any thing is said to be delivered agree not in it how can it be said to be delivered to them who protest not to have received it Wherefore having settled this afore that no decree of the Church inforceth more than the reason of preserving unity in the Church can require wee must by consequence say that if the credit of divine inspiration be denied them by such authors as the Church approveth no decree of the Church can oblige to believe them for such though how farr it may oblige to use them I dispute not here It shall therefore serve my turn to name S. Jerome in this cause Not as if Athanasius in Synopsi Melito of Sardis in Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzene abundance of others both of the most ancient Writers of the Church and of others more modern who justly preferr S. Jerome in this cause did not reject all those parts or most of them which the Church of England rejecteth But because were S. Jerome alive in it there could be no Tradition of the Church for that which S. Jerome not onely a member but so received a Doctor of the Church refuseth For it will not serve the turn to say that hee writ when the Church had decreed nothing in it who had hee lived after the Council of Trent would have writ otherwise The reasons of his opinion standing for which no Council could decree otherwise Hee would therefore have obeyed the Church in using those books which it should prescribe But his belief whether inspired by God or not hee would have built upon such grounds the truth whereof the very being of the Church presupposeth Nor will I stand to scan the sayings of Ecclesiastical Writers or the acts of Councils concerning the authority of all and every one of these books any further in this place There is extant of late a Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scripture in which this is exactly done And upon that I will discharge my self in this point referring my Reader for the consent of the Church unto it And what importeth it I beseech you that they are called Sacred or Canonical Scriptures As if all such writings were not holy which serve to settle the holy Faith of Christians And though it is now received that they are called Canonical because they contain the Rule of our Faith and maners and perhaps are so called in this notion by S. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church Yet if wee go to the most ancient use of this word Canon from which the attribute of Canonical Scripture descendeth it will easily appear that it signifieth no more than the list or Catalogue of Scriptures received by the Church For who should make or settle the list of Scriptures receivable but the Church that receiveth the same it being manifest that they who writ the particulars knew not what the whole should contain And truly as I said afore that the Church of Rome it self doth not by any act of the force of Law challenge that the decrees of the Church are infallible So is it to be acknowledged that in this point of all other it doth most really use in effect that power which formally and expresly it no where challengeth Proceeding to order those books to be received with the like affection of piety as those which are agreed to be inspired by God which it is evident by expresse testimonies of Church writers were not so received from the beginning by the Church So that they who made the decree renouncing all pretense of revelation to themselves in common or to every one in particular can give no account how they came to know that which they decree to be true So great inconveniences the not duely limiting the power of the Church contrives even them into that think themselves therefore free from mistake in managing of it not because they think they know what they do but because they think they cannot do amisse It remaineth therefore that standing to the proper sense of this decree importing that wee are to believe these books as inspired by God neither can they maintain nor wee receive it But if it shall be condescended to abate the proper and native meaning of it so as to signifie onely the same affection of piety moving to receive them not the same object obliging Christian piety to the esteem of them it will remain then determinable by that which shall be said to prove how these books may or ought to be recommended or injoyned by the Church or received of and from the Church CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Original Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The Points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Jewes AS to the other point it is by consequence manifest that the Church hath nothing to do to injoyn any Copy of the Scripture to be received as authentick but that which it self originally received because it is what it is before the Church receive it Therefore seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament was penned first and delivered in the Ebrew Tongue for I need not here except that little part of Esdras and Daniel which is in the Chaldee the same reason holding in both that of the New in the Greek there is no question to be made but those are the authentick Copies Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent bear any dispute to them who have admitted the premises if it be taken to import that the Church thereby settleth the credit of Scripture inspired by God upon the Copy which it self advanceth taking the same away from the Copy which the author penned That credit depending meerly upon the commission of God and his Spirit upon the which the very being of the Church equally dependeth But it is manifest that it cannot be said that the said decree necessarily importeth so much because it is at this day free for every one to maintain that the Original Ebrew and Greek are the Authentick Copies the Vulgar Latine onely injoyned not to be refused in act of dispute or question which hindreth no recourse to the Originals for the determining of the meaning which it importeth Hee that will see this tried need go no further than a little book of Sorbonne Doctor called
Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea may perhaps relish either it was not publickly taken notice of when it was published or passed over in silence for the present in respect of his merit toward the Church As it must be said of his opinion concerning souls flitting into new bodies As for Euseb of Caesarea and the author of the Constitutions which are both charged in this point Eusebius living in the time when the consent of the Church over-ruled the contrary rather evidenceth then interrupteth that Tradition which condemneth him if he agree not with it But the author of the Constitutions is not known at what time he lived to write in the name of Clemens the Apostles Scholar that which for his part he thought most likely to come from the Apostles Whether or no he might think it became him writing in that name to use such terms as he found the ancientest Church-Writers use before the businesse of Arius Whether or no he might mistake himself in doing so I will not dispute But being hard to believe that he writ till the heresie of Arius and Eâ—nâ—mâ—us was down As I can give my self no good reason why he should bring in Arius under the habit of the Apostles so I see the suspicion which he hath contracted in a manner as ancient as the credit of his book in the Church After all this if any man marvail that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should think so slightly of Arius his opinion as in debating it sometimes to side with him sometimes with his adversaries according to Sozomenus Eccles Hist I. 15. Let him consider that the Ecclesiasticall Historians informe us that the difference of Arius was commenced at a Consistory That is at a meeting of the Clergy to debate the businesse Onely Sozomenus that there had been divers meetings about it In which Alexander had not declared himself but spoken sometimes on this side and sometimes on that Not because there is any appearance in the story that Arius himself could have construed his procedings as if he had been doubtfull which side to choose But because any wise man in his place would have thought it the way to preserve his authority over Arius by not declaring himself party against him till he appeared untractable by that reason which his authority must inforce when it self would not serve the turn As for the great Constantine who in his Leter to the Church of Alexandria declareth many times that the question concerned not the substance of Faith It must be said that being no Christian as yet nor catechized in the Faith his information failed either in matter of fact reporting the position of Arius in such terms as might bear a good construction in which what latitude there is it may appear by the premises or in point of right making that not to concern the substance of Faith which indeed doth For those terms in which all the Ecclesiastical Histories agree that the debate was stated are such as indeed do concern the substance of Faith Neither is there any mark in the writings of the Fathers before this time upon which it can be said that any of them thought that there was a time when the Word of God which being incarnate in our Lord Christ was not but was made by God of nothing after that time Which are the characters that distinguish the heresie of Arius Set aside then the Constitutions Eusebius Origen and his Scholar Dionysius as questionable in point of fact or as granted that the sense of their words is not reconcileable with the Faith in point of right the retraction of Dionysius makes as much more for the Faith then his misprision condemned by Gennadius de Dogm Eccl. Cap. IV. and Facundus X. 5. against it as the rejecting of Sabellius makes more for the same then the doubtfull words of Gregory of Nâ—ocaesarea against That which is to be said thereupon is that there can be therefore no reason to blame the Councill of Nicaea for adding to the Creed the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oblige the Arians to the sense of the Church S. Athanasius in his Treatise de Actis Conc. Nicen. hath shewed us that it was introduced to cut off those equivocations whereby they ought to cover their owne sense under those other words which were propounded as capeable of the Catholick sense He that will say that this course ought not to have been held or that having taken effect it ought not to have been retained may as well say that the faith of Christ or the Unity of Gods service in that faith is not to be preserved For being once questioned therâ— must be a Rule and a mark to discern Christians from Hereticks I observe therefoâ—e likewise that the troubles which Arius occasioned in the Church never came to an end till the word person in Latine and hypostasis in Greek was admitted in opposition to the word essence or nature included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nicaea had introduced into the Creed that the difference between the Church and Arius might be stated upon the expresse terms of three persons and one nature For it is evident by S. Jerome Epist LVII that the terme of hypostasis for person was not then received who writes to Pope Damasus to be authorized by him whether to admit or to refuse it But as after that time we hear no further question of the term so under the Emperor Gratiane and Pope Damasus we find the dispute extinguished But I say neverthelesse that there is no cause therefore to imagine that the sense of the Church and the faith thereof hath received any change by the use of new terms which the necessity of preventing Hereticks hath obliged the Church to introduce And I say as the others said that the importance and consequence of the said new terms ought to be reduced to that force which the sense of the Church according to the Scriptures alloweth or rather prescribeth And that whosoever shall take upon him under pretense of the most unquestionable decrees that any age of the Church hath produced to prescribe against that sense which the primitive records of the Church do inforce in so doing sets up the authority of that present Church against the Tradition of the Catholick And after all this shall the Socinians be admitted to alledge that S. Hilary quittâ—th a doubt whether the holy Ghost is to be called God or not Surely the Socinians cannot be admitted to alledge this unlesse they will be content to submit to S. Hilary in the whole businesse Nay unlesse they will stand to the Church to which S. Hilary stands But for those that are not Socinians and would be satisfied I will not use that wretched answer of Erasmus in that excellent preface to S. Hilarys works That the Church hath since decreed otherwise As if there were not a reason why the Church so decreed or as if he were not bound to render that reason
seems to demonstrate not only the Tradition of the Apostles concerning Penance and Excommunication which it abateth and the Keyes of the Church which it manageth but also the Power which it exerciseth not to consist in pardoning sinne at large and immediately but in procuring that disposition to which the Gospel hath proclaimed forgiveness and upon knowledge thereof in assuring the pardon which it pronounceth For whoso considereth the premises can never be so madd as to imagine that men were refused reconcilement even at the point of death or reconciled with a reservation of Penance to be performed if they survived meerly for the satisfaction of the Church and the example of others But because the Church remained not satisfied that God was satisfied with their present disposition as qualifying them for pardon according to his promise Some men have mistaken themselves so farr as to imagine that when a man was admitted to absolution by imposition of hands and the Communion in danger of death by the ancâ—ient Church he could stand bound no further to any Penance But it is very evident in the practice of the ancient Church that in regard some sinnes were not admitted to reconcilement by Penance therefore it concerned the Penitent in the first place to make suit to be admitted Which being granted and he having undertaken the Penance imposed upon him in the next place he was admitted to the Prayers of the Church at all the solemn Assemblies of the Church during the time of his Penance with imposition of hands as the means to obtain pardon at Gods hands So Imposition of hands signified not Absolution but the way to it and capacity of it supposing the performance of Penance imposed And this is petere poenitentiam accipere poenitentiam propter manûs impositionem in the ancient canons by name Concil Tolet. XI can XII to demand Penance and to accept of Penance by imposition of hands As appears by that form of the publick service of the Church which you have in the Constituions II. 8. 9. where you have the form of prayer to be offered for Penitents when they were dismissed before the celebration of the Eucharist he that prayeth holding his hands over them kneeling Neither was there any other absolution then this in use according to the ancient custome of the Church He who having declared himself offended at himself for that which he had done had obtained of the Church to be admitted to Penance for the time that his Penance continued was prayed for by the Church that his sinne might be pardoned in order to communion with the Church The time of his Penance being compleated his absolution was the restoring of him to communion with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist This is that absolution upon which the Church warranteth his pardon not by pronouncing him pardoned but supposing him qualified for it by that disposition which his Penance had produced And though afterwards the form of absolution changed and was pronounced by way of sentence not by way of Prayer desired yet was there still the more doubt to be made of the validity thereof the more confidence it signified because the more trust was reposed in the power of the Church the lesse provision was made for that disposition which the Gospel before the being of the Church requireth One thing more I desire may be considered in the practice of the ancient Church to evidence the same which is this The Church being necessitated to abate of the primitive strictnesse and to admit all maner of sinnes to reconcilement by Penance that they might the better answer their trust to God in not warranting the pardon of sinne without reasonable trial of repentance took a course of lengthning the time of Penance during which the conversation of the Penitent might yield assurance of it For the Canons whereby so many years Penance is prescribed upon such and such sinnes were couched in writing long after the times of Montanus or Novatians And therefore the customes whereby they came in force before they came in writing had their beginning from that obligation which the Church desired to discharge of not warranting forgiveness of sinne but upon due grounds In this case then and generally whosoever was injoyned Penance to qualifie him for communion with the Church if he did any eminent act which might evidence the sincerity and zeal of his conversion or his forwardness and eagerness in taking revenge upon himself was not onely of custome and course so much the easier readmitted by the Church but was ordered by the Canons to be so much the easier and sooner readmitted For evidence whereof as also of divers other particulars here alleadged I will remit the Reader that would be informed to Morinus his great work de administratione Poenitentiae It shall serve my turn here to point out to you the ground which these effects evidence to be this That the Catholick Church proceeded not in binding and loosing as if it had any power to give pardon at large But as supposing that those that are bound by the Church cannot be loosed but by the Church nor loosed by the Church but supposing the disposition that qualifieth for pardon produced in them by that Penance which the authority thereof constraineth to undergo And therefore that in the power of injoyning Penance fitting as well as of declaring pardon the power of forgiving sinnes in the Church is by the tradition of the Church declared to consist I will conclude with the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Casarea Cappadocia in his Leter to S. Cyprian among S. Cyprians LXXV He saith that they used in their parts to hold Synods every year Ut si qua graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur Lapsis quoque fatribus post lavacrum salutare à Diabolo vulneratis per poenitentiam medela quaeratur Non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur sed ut per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur This businesse of greater waight may be ordered by common advice And remedy found by Penance for brethren that have fallen away being wounded by the Devill after the laver of salvation Not as if they got pardon of sinnes from us but that being by our means converted to understand their own sinnes they may be constrained to make the fuller satisfaction to God These are the very terms upon which my opinion standeth Let us now compare the Originall and general practice of the Church with that which we have in the Apostles writings and say by the agreement whither their authority were the beginning of it or not Shall we think that all who ever questioned the reconciling of some sinnes were utterly void of common sense in imagining that the Apostle to the Hebrews and S. John writing of the sin unto death intended not to speak of that pardon which the Church may or ought to give or not give when
about to impose new Laws upon the Church But those new Laws I show you were excepted against from the beginning of pretending them Let any man show me that voluntary confession of secret sins was ever exceped against in Tertullian who writ that Book when he was of the Catholick Church earnestly perswading to it Likewise though he writ his Book de Pâ—dicitia when he was become a Montanist yet it is easie to discern what he speaks in it as a Montanist by discerning what the Catholick Church contests and what it allows of his doctrine In the seventh Chapter of that Book it is manifest that he calls those sinnes to Penance which he were a mad man that should take either for scandalous or for notorious The Novatians being a branch of the Montanists and refusing to reconcile the greatest sins are to be thought to have followed their order in reconciling lesse sins as it is manifest by S. Ambrose de Poenit. V. 2. that they did Therefore they and therefore the Catholick Church did practice the discipline of Penance upon sins neither notorious nor scandalous In S. Cyprianâ— you have severall places where he mentions Penance for those sinnes which were to be confessed according to the custome of the Church after a certain time of humiliation when they were to be admitted to imposition of hands that is to the prayers of the Church for the pardon of him whom the Bishops blessing which the â—mposition of hands signifies acknowledged hopefull for remission of sinnes Epist X. LV. The same S. Cypriane de lapsis manifestly instances in those that had committed Idolatry secretly or had resolved towards it what befel them because they revealed it not to the Church so that sometimes they did reveal it Here cometh in the fact of Nectarius related by Socrates V. 19. because the custome being to confesse to a Priest deputed to that purpose sinnes not otherwise known who was to direct what she should publickly declare when she came before the congregation a certain noble Woman whose case is there related proceeded to declare that which caused such scandall that thereupon Nectarius then Bishop of Constantinople thought fit to put down the office which that Priest then held and executed of receiving the confession of those sinnes which were afterwards in part to be made known to the Church as the Priest intrusted should direct For Socrates relating the discourse which he had with the Priest which advised Nectarius to abolish the office aforesaid saith that he told him it was to be feared that he had given occasion to bring S. Pauls precept to no effect which saith Communicate not in the fruitlesse workes of darknesse but rather reprove them Which must suppose the publishing of those sinnes which a man may pretend by brotherly correction to restore And it is manifest that secret confession of sinnes hath remained in the Eastern Church and in that of Constantinople particularly even to this time So that no man can imagine that it was abrogated by Nectarius Origen in Psal XXXVII Hom. II. advises indeed to look about you for a skilful Physitian to whom you may open the disease of your soul good reason For there being a number of Presbyters by whom every Church was governed and it being in a mans choice whom he would have recourse to were he not to blame that should not make diligent choice But when he adviseth further that if he think the sinne fit to be declared to the assembly of the Church as where it is to be cured doth he not require necessary Penance upon voluntary confessions S. Ambrose de Pâ—nit II. 7. I. 6. II. 8. 9. laboureth to abate the shame of confessing sinnes If he speak of publick sinnes there can be no reason why For what hath he to do to abate that shame that cannot be avoided That which may be avoided is that which cometh by confessing such sins as it is in a mans power to conceal The same is evident in S. Augustinâ— Hom. ult ex L. And is further cleared by this that it is evident that he who was discovered not to have discovered to the Church that sinne which he was privy to but the world was not is by many acts of the Church constrained to undergo Penance for that default And in the Eliberitanâ— Canons it is provided that he who confesseth of his own accord shall come off with a lighter Penance he who is revealed by another shall be liable to a harder censure Can. LXXVI But no evidence can be so effectuall as the introducing of the Law of auricular confession that is of confessing once a year as well as receiving the Eucharist once a year For be it granted as it is most true that this Law comes into force and effect by the secular power of those soveraignties of Christendom which complying with the interest of the Church of Rome have agreed and do agree to inact the decrees of those Councils which have been held by the authority of it or the provisions thereof during the time that no Councils are held by temporall penalties upon their iubjects Is it therefore imaginable that the Councill could have pretended to introduce this limitation and demand the secular power to inact it had it not been a custome in force before that act was done that people should submit themselves to Penance for those sinâ—es which the Church without themselves could not charge them with Could any man offer so much violence to his own reason as to affirm that which himself cannot believe he would easily be convinced by producing the fashion of Ashwednesday and the order for the greatest part of Christians to declare themselves Penitents at the beginning of Lent with a pretence of obtaining absolution to the intent of receiving the communion of the Eucharist at Easter Which being more ancient then that law sufficiently demonstrateth that the effect of it was not to introduce the confession of secret sinnes which alwayes had been in use and force in the Church but expresly to limit and determine that which had been alwayes done formerly for the future to be done by all and at the least once a year It remains now to show the originall and generall practice of the Church that there is no Tradition to evidence that no sinne after Baptism can obtain remission but by the Church speaking of such sinnes as make the grace of Baptism void which is sufficiently done already if we remenber that not only the Montâ—nists or the Novatians but the Church also did sometimes exclude some sinnes from all hope of reconciliation by the Church not excluding them neverthelesse from hope of pardon with God but not ingaging the Church to warrant it For I demand in what consideration that pardon is obtained which the Church supposes possible for them to obtain Is it not upon the same score as all Christians obtain padon of sin To wit by being qualified for it with that disposition of mind which
at Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the word of God sent to them Peter and John Can S. Peter go upon commission from the Apostles who gives the Apostles the commission they have Those that preached circumcision at Antiochia had no commission for it from the Church at Jerusalem Act. XV. 24. It must have been from S. Peter if that Church had acted then by virtue of his Commission But he was present and is signified as one of them that writ these words Let any man stand upon it that will that the false Apostles whom S Paul writes against 2 Cor. XI 13. pretended commission from S. Peter because of the opposition which they made between him on the one side and S Paul and Apollos on the other side 2 Cor. I. 12. Though I showed you beter reason afore that they pretended that commission from the Apostles which they disowned Acts XV. 24. It is easie for me to say that they pretended not S. Peters name as Soveraign over the Apostles but as founder of the Church of Corinth as well as S. Paul which Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius witnesseth Whereas when S. Paul pleads his Commission of Apostle from God and not from man Gal. I. 1. II. 6 9. and that in express opposition to S. James and S. John as well as to S. Peter it is manifest that they as well as S. Peter might have pretended to give it had he not been an Apostle but being an Apostle none but our Lord Christ And therefore when he resists S. Peter and reproves him to the face Gal. II. 11-14 understand this resistance and reproof as you please whither true or colourable had S. Peter been Monarch it had not been for an Apostle to colour his proceeding with a pretense inferring rebellion against his Soveraign Wherefore there may be lesand greater Apostles foâ— personâ—ble qualiâ—ies And S. Paul that is the least of them for his calling may be inferiour to none for his labours 1 Cor. XV. 9. 10. 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 11. 12. Nay S. Peter may have a standing pre-eminence of Head of the Bench to avoid confusion and to create order in their proceedings and yet their commission be immediate from our Lord and the mater of it and the power it creates the same for substance Having thus destroyed this ground upon which some people claim a Monarchy over the Church for the Pope by the scriptures without seeking for other exceptions to the pretense that may be made to the same purpose from the Tradition of the Catholick Church I proceed to setle the ground of that eminence and superiority which I conceive some Churches have over others for the unity of the whole Church Because of necessity the reason and ground upon which it stands must be the measure of it how farre it extends And the positive truth thereof will be negatively an exception to that Soveraignty which the Bishop of Rome by the succession of S. Peter pretendeth I say then that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ intending to convert the World to the Faith and to establish one Church of all that should be converted to it did agree and appoint that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chief Churches and that the Churches of inferiour Cities should depend upon them and have recourse to them in all things that might concern the common Christianity whither in the Rule of Faith or in the Unity of the Church in the offices of Gods service reserving unto themselves the ordering of those things which being of lesse moment might concern their own peace and good order rather then the interesse of other Churches I do not pretend to produce any act under the Apostles hands in which this conclusion is signed but to proceed upon the principles premised to argue and to inferre that those things which I shall evidently show have passed in the Church could not otherwise have come to pass unlesse we could suppose that a constant order which hath wholly taken place in the Church ever since the Apostles could have prevailed over those infinite wayes which confusion might have imagined had there been no ground from whence this certain order should rise And here I do profess that if any man will needs be contentious and say that this order came not in by the appointment of the Apostles themselves because during their time the probability of converting the Romane Empire and other Nations to Christianity could not appear and that it doth not appear by any circumstance of Scripture that the Spirit of Prophesy was given them to such purposes I will rather grant all this then contend about those terms which I need not insist upon though I do firmly believe that before all the Apostles left the World the conversion of the Gentiles was their design and the design of their successors But I will provide on the other side that whither the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors in whom the power of governing the whole Church was as fully to all purposes as in the Apostles themselves for though they might be assisted by the Gift of Prophesy in those occasions as it is probable they were at the Council of Jerusalem Acts XV. yet must their authority proceed whether so assisted or not the obligation upon the Church must needs remain the same to cherish and maintain that Order which once might have been established by them the Unity of the Church which is the end of it not being otherwise attainable And upon this ground I maintain that the Churches of Rome Alexandria and Antiochia had from the beginning a priviledge of eminence above other Churches For Rome being the seat of the Empire Alexandria and Antiochia which had formerly been the Seates of the Successors of Ptolomee in Aegypt and Seleucus in Asia having from their first coming under the Romane Empire had their peâ—uliar Governours it is no marvail if the Churches founded in them held their peculiar priviledges and eminences over the Churches of their resorts from the very founding of Christianity in these mother Cities and the propagating of it from thence into inferiour Cities and thence over the confines And this is the onely reason that can be rendred why the Church of Jerusalem which in respect of the first abode of the Apostles and the propagation of Christianity is justly counted the mother of all Churches and which gave law to that of Antiochia and the rest that were concerned in the same dispute with it and during the Apostles time received oblations of maintenance from the Churches of the Gentiles became afterwards inferiour to these and in particular to that of Antiochia But he that shall compare these Cities and the greatnesse of them and eminence over their respective Territories with that of Rome not onely over the rest of the Empire but over those Cities with find it consequent to the ground of this design not that the Church of Rome should be
way allow that other Churches could be obliged to follow the Church of Rome in this sentence the unity of the Church which is the end being of nearer interest and concernment to them all then the authority of Victor or of his Church or then uniformity in this point which is but the mean to obtain it Which as it is true so was it indeed the reason that Irenaeus alleged to Victor â—o divert him from that resolution in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 25. 26. where you may see that his credit and the credit of the rest of those that held communion with both prevailed to void those leters which Victor had issued to break of communion with the Churches of Asia And therefore I cannot wish to show you better marks both of the dependence of Churches and the superiority of the Church of Rome and also that this superiority was regular and not soveraign as that of a Monarch when the greatest of inferiour Churches have recourse and respect to it as the center of their communion and yet do not absolutely give up themselves to yield to the authority of it as they do to the sentence of the Council of Niâ—aea because it could not be reasonable for the Churches of Asia to stand out with it Whereby you see the difference between the authority of the Pope and the authority of a general Council The businesse of Novatianus will not require many words to evidence the same consequence by it The Church of Rome it self was the seat of the businesse and the calamity thereof suffering a Schism within her own bowels the occasion of it And I appeal to the experience of the world whither intestine dissension do not discover the respect all men owe to their Neigbours by the need they have of them for the composing of it But not to speak of occasion of advantage but of termes of right that Church having gotten two Heads Cornelius and Novatianus who was then judge which side ought to be accounted the Church of Rome â—o that the other party should be obliged to submit and joyn with it For had it been a Law that obliged the whole Church that those who had fallen away in time of persecution be not admitted to Penance and by consequence to the communion any more which was the motive and ground why Novatianus was made Bishop against Cornelius certainly the rest of the Church must have acknowledged Novatianus who maintained it not Cornelius who waved it Notwithstanding that Cornelius was made by sixteen Bishops of the then resort of that Church Novatianus but by three For though the Canon of the Apostles requiring onely three Bishops or two at least to the ordaining of a Bishop may very well seem to be the ancienter custome in the Church then the IV Canon of Nicaea which provideth that it be done by the consent of all the resort either present or under their hands referring themselves to three that are present yet is it plain that the act of three oâ— two at least was accepted upon presumption of the consent of the rest anâ—â—â—â— dispatch of businesse because Ordinations would otherwise have been â—nrâ—â—â—onâ—bly troublesome But this Canonicall advantage of Cornelius his câ—use could noâ— have wayed against the Novatians plea had it been indeâ—d a 〈…〉 â—â—ds Law to the whole Church that Apostates be not readâ—itted â—o 〈◊〉 For this not onely the Novatians stood upon but afterwards 〈◊〉 â—â—â— persâ—â—ution of Diocletian the Meletians fell away from the 〈…〉 â—o other quarrel as you may see by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII In thâ—◠〈…〉 the Authority of the rest of the Church must have oversway 〈…〉 of the reâ—ort of the Church of Rome the greatest part whâ—â—◠〈…〉 for Cornelius And because it was a point hitherto not decide◠〈…〉 questionâ—ble in the Church therefore it comes to the sentence 〈…〉 Now it is a question not to be answered by those who make 〈…〉 of the Church of Rome Monarch over the whole how then th◠〈…〉 giving Law to that Church should depend on other Churches as here 〈…〉 iâ— doth For the common intereâ—t of Christianity whether in mater o◠〈…〉 is the ground of the dispute or in the unity of the Church 〈…〉 calleth in question is that which makes the Novatians whither 〈…〉 Sâ—hismaticks not acknowledging Cornelius after that he was aâ—knowleâ—◠〈◊〉 â—y the rest of the Church And for this cause it is that the Churâ—h oâ— â—â—â—â—ochia that is the Synode whereof that Church was the Heâ—◠〈…〉 a return from the Church of Rome for the favour they did it in 〈◊〉 Cornâ—lâ—us which they made great difficulty to do a great while as you 〈…〉 by that which I related in the first Book For supposing that 〈…〉 of Antiochia did no more in the businesse then right required yet 〈…〉 goes he that hath right done him may well acknowlâ—ge himselfe 〈…〉 that doth him right In the mean time S. Cypriane and the Churâ—◠〈…〉 with the dependences of it declare for Cornelius from the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 with his Church of Alexandria and the dependences thereâ—◠〈…〉 â—nâ—ormation are wonne to their side Neither could Fabius an◠〈◊〉 Châ—râ—â—es that resorted to Antiochia have stood out without great mischieâ—â—â—â—â—â— whole And therefore what thanks soever they may deserve of the Church â—â— Rome for doing their duty in such a distresse of it Who can say that the Sovâ—â—aign Power of the Church of Rome obliged them to make it Soveraign de facto which being divided de jure it was not when it is so evident that the unity oâ— the Church obliged them each in their several ranks to concur to that means which God had provided for the maintenance of it by establishing the Church of Rome in the first place In the businesse that â—ell out about rebaptizing Hereticks that returned to the Church when we see the Church of Rome alone ingaged against the Churches of Africk and oâ— the East both for you must remember what I observed afore that thoâ—e who made the moâ—t difficulty in disowning Novatianus were the same that stood for rebaptizing Hereticks with the African Churches on their side we are â—ound to presume that many and great Churches depended upon it to wâ—igh against so great a consent as opposed it For in point of fact it is evident that it was the consent of the geatest part that obliged the rest to joyn with it And in point of right the presumption iâ— peremptory that the greatest part â—ould not agree to determine against Gods Law but walked within those bounds which God had confined his Church with We are not then to marvail so much at the heats which passed between Stephen Bishop of Rome on one side and S. Câ—prian â—or Cartâ—age and Firmilianus chief Bishop of Pontus on the other side â—or it is evident that they referred not themselves to Stephens opinion concerning Gods Law whose successors are now pretended infallible And yet did refer themselves to the judgement of the
to restore those that were fallen away in persecution contrary to the resolution of the Church which had referred it to a Council as we learn by S. Cyprian Epist XXXVIII XL. with Fortunatus a Bishop of this party betaking themselves to Rome are first refused by Cornelius but upon appearance of a party in his Church for them put him to a stand In this case S. Cyprian writing his LV. Epistle acknowledges the Church of Rome the seat of S. Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the Priesthood was sprung but maintaines that every Bishop hath a portion of Christs flock assigned him to govern upon his account to Christ And therefore that causes are to be ended where they riâ—e and the good intelligence between Bishops ought not to be interrupted by carying causes abroad to be judged again Is not all this true supposing the case For who câ—n chuse but blame a schismaticall attempt But could any man hinder Basilides and Martialis from seeking the Church of Rome had their cause been good seeing their adverse paâ—ty did and might seek to foâ—â—ain Churches Was it not necessary to seek both to Carthage and to Rome for the freeing of the Church of Arles under Marciâ—nus from communion with the Novatians Here I conâ—eive lies the truth Some causes of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome to wit such as necessarily concern the whole Church either in the faith or in the unity of it Such was the cause of Marcianus which could not be ended but by the same consent which cast the Novatians out of the Church Was the cause of Basilides and Martialis of the same weight was it not meerly personal and concâ—rning mater of fact whither they had indeed sacrificed to Idols or not no question remaining in point of right that such could not be Bishops yet could not the Bishops of Spain over-rule the Bishop of Rome not to receive information from the aggrievâ—d Their way was to have recourse to other Churches the consent whereof might out-way the Church of Rome together with the goodnesse of the cause And the Church of Carthage must have done the same had Felicissimus and Fortunatus found reception at Rome and credit to balâ—nce their cause against S. Cyprian and the African Church So that causes of Faith necessarily concerning the whole Church whensoever they rendâ—r the peace thereof questionable those that for their weight do not concern â—he whole will concern it when they render the peace thereof questionable And so long as Law provideth not bounds to determine what causes shall be ended at home in the parts where they rise what cause is there that may not be pretended to concern the whole and by consequence the Church of Rome which being the principal Church what cause concerning the whole can end without it He that admits not this supposition conâ—â—sting in the regular pre-eminence denying the unlimited Power of the Church of Rome over other Churches will never give a reason why recourse is alwayes had to the Church of Rome and yet if the cause require to other Churches to ballance it The unity of the Church and communion with it is the thing that is â—ought The consent of the greatest Churches that of Rome in the 〈◊〉 place is the meanes to obtain it This businesse therefore is much of kin to that of the Donatists triall under Constantine when they petitioned the secular Power that they might be heard by the Bishops of Gaul intimating the reason vvhy they declined the Bishops of Italy to be because they might be tainted with falling away or shuffling in the perâ—ecution of Diocletian which they charged their adverse party in Africk with because they expresse this for the ground of their Petition in Optatus I. that under Constantius there had been no persecution in Gaâ—l Here I must pass by the consideration of any thing that may concern the dispute between secular and Ecclesiasticall Power as not concerning this place But when Constantine by his answer assigns them for Judges the Bishops of Rome and Milane with such and such of their suffraganes joyning with them the Bishops of Collen Autun and Arles in Gaul to satisfie them it is plain that he refuses them to transgresse that respect which the constitution of the Church challenged for the Churches of Rome and Milane that such causes as concerned the unity of the Church in the Western parts of the Empire should be determined not by the Pope alone noâ— the Church of Rome alone but by the Churches of Rome and Milane as the chief Churches of that part of the Empire the Church of Rome alwayes in the first place On the other side when the Donatists not satisfied with their sentence petition the Emperour again that it may be review'd and the Emperour adjourns them for a second triall to a Council at Arles it is plain that hee allowes them not an appeal from the former sentence because many of those that were Judges in the former Synod did vote in the later Synod But it is as plain that the parties then held not the Popes judgement either alone or in Council unquestionable unlesse all were madd in pretending to give either check or strength to that sentence which was originally unquestionable If therefore a sentence given by the Pope in a Council of Italy which some Gaulish Bishops joyned thereunto might be revised in a fuller Council of Gaulish Bishops with the concurrence of many others as well Italian and Spanish to say nothing of three from Britaine the first unquestionable record of the British Churches is it not manifest that Euclids axiome that the whole is greater then any part of it takes place in the Church as well as the words of S. Jerome Orbis major est Vrbe that the world is greater then the City of Rome Surely if S. Austine Ep. CLXII say well that the Donatists might have appealed to a General Council had they been justly grieved by the sentence at Rome his saying will hold if they had been grieved by the Council of Arles though concluding the Western Church But it will hold also of the Council of Arles that it had been madnesse to call it had not the generality thereof extended to conclude the Western Church further then the former at Rome though the cause came not to it by appeal CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminences of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth HEre the next consideration for time being that of the Council of Nicaea the VI Canon whereof first limited by written Law the pre-eminences of Churches in the Empire having taken place by custome before I will not repeat that
ground for Councils and for their authority which I have laid in the first Book nor bound the right of Civil and Ecclesiasticall Power in giving force to the acts of them which I reserve for the end of this third Bood But to evidence the constitution of them from whence their authority in the Church must proceed I maintain here from the premises that the originall constitution of the Church determineth the person of the Bishop to represent his respective Church in Council And that the constitution of Councils consisting of Bishops representing their respective Churches evidenceth the authority of Bishops in the same Which produceth the effect of obliging either the whole Church or that part which the Council representeth by the consent of Votes The act of the Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles Act. XV. was respective to the Churches of Jerusalem and Antiochia with those which were planted from thence by Paul and Barn 〈…〉 made by an authority sufficient to oblige the whole Church The El 〈…〉 concurred to the vote with the Apostles those that will be so ridicul 〈…〉 for Lay Elders of Presbyters But will never tell us how the V 〈…〉 Elders should oblige the Church of Antiochia and the plantations 〈…〉 y were the Elders who joyned with the Apostles from whom they could not be dis-joyned were able to oblige the whole Church And indeed there is no mention of them in the acts of chusing Matthias and the seven Deacons Acts I. VI. which acts concerned the whole Church And therefore there is appearance that the authority which they alwayes had in respect of the Church to be constituted was by that time known to be limited by the allowance and consent of the Apostles But when I granted that S. Paul seems to allow both the Romanes and the Corinthians to eat things sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures I did not grant that his authority could derogate from the act of the Apostles But that the act of the Apostles was not intended for the Churches represented at the doing of it As that which was done Act. XXI how great soever the authority might be that did it seems to extend no further then the occasion in hand That which remains then in the Scriptures agreeth perfitly well with the original practice of the whole Church It cannot be denied that there are here and there in the records of the Church instances evidencing the sitting of Presbyters in Council which I deny not must needs import the priviledge of voting But the reason of their appearing there appears so often to be particular by commission from their Bishops and to supply their absence that there is no means in the world to darken this evidence for the superiority of Bishops For can it possibly be imagined that the Bishop should alwaies represent his Church in all Councils without choice or other act to depute him were he no more then the first of the Presbyters Is it not evident that the whole Church alwaies took him for the person without whom nothing could be done in the Church which whither in Council or out of Council never dealt with his Church but by him alwayes with his Church by his means Now for the authority of Councils thus constituted though for peace sake and because an end must be had the resolution of all Councils must come from number of Votes which swayes the determinations of all Assemblies yet there is thereupon a respect to be had to the Provinces or parts of the Church which those that vote do represent unlesse we will impute it to blame to those that suffer wrong if they submit not themselves to the determinations of those whom themselves have more right to oblige This consideration resolves into the grounds of the dependence of lesse Churches upon greater Churches all standing in the likelihood of propagating Christianity out of greater Cities into the lesse and of governing the Church in unity by submitting lesse residences to greater rather then on the contrary Which is such a principle that all men of capacity will acknowledge but all would not stand convict of had not the Church admitted it in effect from their founders before they were convict of the effect of it by humane foresight Upon this supposition the Church cannot properly be obliged by the plurality of Bishops who all have right to vote in Council but by the greatnesse and weight of the Churches for whom they serve concurring to a vote And hereof there be many traces in the Histories of the Church when they mention the deputation of some few Bishops representing numerous Provinces which for distance of place or other peremptory hinderances could not be present to frequent as others For can this be a reasonable cause why they should be obliged by the votes of those who were present in greater number The true reason why the decrees of Councils have not alwaies had nor ought alwayes to have the force and effect of definitive sentences but of â—â—rong prejudices to sway the consent of the whole Because there was never any Council so truly Generall that all parts concerned were represented by number of Voâ—es proportionable to the interesse of the Churches for whom they serve For certainly greater is the interest of greater Churches Which case whenâ—oever it comes to passe those that are not content have reason to allege that they are not to be tied by the vote of others but by their own consent And therefore the nnity of the Church requireth that there be just presumption upon the mater of decrees that they will be admitted by those who concurre not to them as no lesse for their good then for the good of the rest of the Church In the mean time the pretense of the Popes infinite Power remaines inconsistent with the very pretenâ—e of calling a Council For why so much trouble to obtain a vote that shall signifie nothing without his consent his single sentence obliging no lesse These are the grounds of that Aristocraty in which the Church was originally governed by the constitution of the Apostles unlesse we will think that a constant order viâ—â—ble in all the proceedings thereof could have come from the voluntary consâ—nt of Christendom not prevented by any obligation and drawing every part of it towards their severall interests which makes the obligation of Councils and their decrees harder to be obtained but when once obtained more firm and sure as not tending to destroy the originall way of maintaining Unity by the free correspondence and consent of those who are concerned but to shorten the trouble of obtaining it And if this were understood by the name of the Hierarchy why should not the simplicity of Apostolical Christianity own it Now because the greatnesse of Churches depended by the ground laid upon the greatnesse of the Cities which was in some sorâ— ambulatory till it was setled by the rule of the Empire begun by Adriane and compleated by Constantine my meaning will
nothing For what Jurisdiction had any civill Magistrate that govâ—rnâ—d Rome over other Cities without the Precinct oâ— it And yet shall we be so â—iâ—â—â—ulous the Canon describing the priviledges of the Church of Rome by those of Alexandria which extended as far as the Government of Aegypâ— â—o confine those of the prime Church of the Empire within the 〈…〉 I suppose therefore they have farre the best cause who suppose 〈◊〉 to be called Regiones suburbicariae which were under the Lieutenant of Rome in oppoâ—tion to the Lieutenant of Italy resident a Milane having under him seven of those Provinces into which that Government was then divided In which regard the other ten Provinces which were under the Lieutenant of the City resident at Rome are properly called Suburbicariae though pâ—rt of them were the Isles of Sicilia Sardinia and Corsica c. And here lies the greatest question nothing else bearing water in my judgement For by this Canon â—ll the right and title of the Church of Rome is to be measured by the right oâ— any one of those Churches which were the Heads of Dioceses taking Dioceses for the residences of Lieutenants all which are to be suppoâ—ed equall in power granting onely Rome the precedence which all Order requiâ—es For what right can the Church of Rome challenge which this Canon acknowleges not Is it right or wrong which the decree of the whole Church alloweth not Strongly argued I confess which notwithstanding I am not satisfied with For the intent of the Ganon being to setle the lights of Alexandria is satisfied by rehearsing the like rights in the Churches of Rome and Antiochiâ— which by supposing as in force of old it setleth for the future But is this to declare and limite the Title thereof in regard of the rest especially for the Western Church which the Councill had no occasion to meddle with Judge first by that which appears In the greatest concernments of the Church concerning Montanus concerning the keeping of Easter concerning the cause of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of the Donatists of Dionysius Alexandrinus In fine concerning those which I mentioned out of S. Cyprians Epistles What one Church can there be named to the concurrence whereof the like respect hath been had in things concerning the Faith and Unity of the Whole as that of Rome For that which follows I think there remains no dispute the priviledges thereof still increasing as well by the acts of Councils as by custome and use And of that I must demand a reason how they should come to be cast upon one had there not been from the beginning a stock of Title exclusive to any other of the greatest Churches acknowledging the order of the Apostles to have provided no further then that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chiefe Churches leaving the rest to the Church upon consideration of the State of the World to determine One particular I must insist upon for the eminence of it I have already mentioned the generall Councils whereof how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches And this admission what can it can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Councill of Nicâ—a though the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Conncils as the Churches of Britaine had their Bishops at the I. Council of Arles at the Councils of Sarâ—ica and of Ariminum in other occasions they may justly seem to referre themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the acts of it So that S. Jerome might very well name Rome and the West as the same paâ—ty in his LXXVII Epistle Haereticum me cum Occidente haereticum cum Aegypto hoc est cum Damaso Petroque condemnent Let them condemn me for an Heretick with the West and with Aegypt that is with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria And against Vigiâ—â—nâ—â—us he calls the Western Churches the Churches of the Apostolick See So S. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Crown of the West Epist X. and S. Austine cont Jul. Pelag. I. 2. Puto tibi eam partem Orbis sufficere debere in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit dominus glorioso Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem Beatum Iâ—nocentiuâ— si audire voluisses I conceive that part of the world should serve your turn in which it pleased God to Crown with a glorious Martyrdom the first of his Apostles The President of which Church blessed Innocent if you would have heard He supposes Innocent being over the Church of Rome to be over the Western Church In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril threatens John of Jerusalem that those who will have communion with the West must submit to the sentence of the Synod at Rome against Nestorius Part. I. cap. XXI the leter of Pope Agatho to the Emperour in the VI. General Council Act. IV. supposes the Synods of the Lombards Slaves Frankes Gothes and Britaines to belong to the Synod of Rome and that the Council was to expect account of them from it No otherwise then to the leter of the Synod of Rome to the second Generall Council ninety Bishops of Italy and Gaul concurred according to Theodoret. And Cornelius in S. Hieromes Catalogue writ to Flavianus Bishop of Antiochia from the Synods of Rome Gaul and Africk Whereby it may appear how the Western Churches alwayes went along with that of Rome Which though it give not the Church of Rome that priviledge over the Churches of eight Dioceses which the canons of Nicaea do confirm to the Bishops of Alexandria over the Diocese of Aegypt and the Church of Antiochia over the Eastern Diocâ—ses yet necessarily argueth a singular pre-eminence in it over them all in regard whereof he is stiled Patriarch of the West during the regular Government of the Church and being so acknowledged by King James of excellent memory in his leter to the Cardinall of Perrâ—n may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church that had rather stand divided then own him in that quality But granting the Church of Rome to be regularly the seat of the chiefe Patriarch for so he is stiled in the Council of Chalcedon Act. III. so the Emperour Justine calls Hormisdas so Justinian calls the Bishop of Rome Nov. CIX And the VI Council Act. XVIII counts five seats of Patriarchs And if Gregory Epist XI 54. acknowledge Spain to have no Patriarch and Innocent III. C. grave de Praeb dignit C. antiqua de Privil count but four it is because they would make the Pope more
the whole state is of the same Church as a corporation consisting of the same persons as the state That this is from the beginning the sense of Christendom easily appeares supposing that which I have showed by the premises that the Canons of the Church were not first in force and limited to the termes which we have in writing as the acts of generall or particular Councils from the date of those Councils But by unwritten custome derived from the Orders given out by the Apostles and their successors unto the Churches of their founding and by the intercourse of all Churches with the authority of the Clergy and consent of the people in each setled over the whole This for the time that the Church was a corporation sometimes persecuted sometimes tolerated by the Empire during which time it were ridiculous to question whether Councils were held or not But neverthelesse impossible to derive the customes of the Church from their acts After Constantine the protection of Christianity was become so firme a law of the Empire that Julian though absolute Soveraigne and miserably desirous to roote it out could not have his will of it during his short reigne And though generall Councils were called onely by the Emperors for the reasons aforesaid and particular councils might be called as oft as they pleased yet the Canon of Nicaea which provides for the holding of them twice a yeare showes the acts of them to be all the acts of the Church though with allowance of that state And what prejudice to any state in all this That God should have provided a Corporation for the Church to determine all maters determinable concerning that wherein the communion thereof consisteth Providing the state oâ— a right Power as Soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever prejudiceth the peace or weale of the state no way prejudiciall to Christianity because there is nothing in Christianity prejudiciall to any state And as Christian to see the persons trusted on behalfe of the Church observe the due bounds as well of their authority as of the mater of their acts wherein it is limited either by the word of God or by greater authority within the Church He that lookes upon the French the Spanish the English the Germane Councils will find sufficient marks as well of the ratification of secular power as of the determination of the Church Thus far the businesse is cleare For if the Rescripts of the Popes in the West which are extant after Syricius if the Canonicall Epistiles of some great Bishops in the East and afterwards the rescripts of the Patriarches of Constantinople make up the Canon Law by which they were respectively governed the allowance of the state is evident enough where the authority of the Church onely acteth But there are in the Roman Lawes abundance of acts especially of the Emperours after Justinian which give a forme and not onely force to the ordering of Church maters which is indeed to give Law to the Church obliging the Church to execute the same And there is a most eminent instance in France when Charles VII tooke occasion upon dissension between the Pope and the Councile of Basil by a convocation of his Nobles and Clergy to give a forme to the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Law within his dominions by an act called the Pragmatick sanction which tooke place in that kingom â—ill the Concordates between Francis the I. and Leo X. Pope And that with such approbation as seemes to carry the face of a protestation of the whole Church and kingdome against the said concordates Here is indeed wherewith to justifie an extraordinary course of proceeding when present disorder required an expedient And the disorder in Church maters which some alledge for the occasion whereupon Charles the Great caused the French Capitular to be made tends to the same purpose Nor doe I deny the acts of the Easterne Emperors or other soverains may be beneficiall to the Church by the inexecution of the proper Lawes of the Church and the difficulty of providing new that may be availeable But to provide with all that they may be more prejudiciall in the example of superseding the authority of the Church then beneficiall in the providing against present abuses I have given you an instance in mariages upon divorce and for the consequence of it I claime that no such acts be taken for precedents but stand liable to examination upon the principles premised though possibly usefull for the time and obliging the Church to use them for the common good Neither is it enough to prove that God hath not instituted both these interests in Church maters that both may erre and abuse their power oppose one another that it may become questionable what the one or the other of these powers may or ought to do which of those that belong to both are to follow For answer I hold it enough for me resting in the generall afore established to say That there is appearance of reason that secular Powers knowing how much it concerns both the interest of their estates and the salvation of their own soules that the Church under them be maintained in unity will not interrupt the Church in the use of that right which duely limited can adde nothing to their soveraignties if they should seize it into their hands nor take any thing from them being maintained in their hands who by Gods law are to hold it As for the Church and those that claime under the Church what appearance is there that they should attempt upon their Soveraigne but disorder in State upon difference of claime and title which what Law preventeth For as for that one instance of the Bishops of Rome and the occasion of their exempting themselves from the allegiance of the Empire I am to speak anon So that the quiet of Christendome as for this point will require no more but that the common understanding of men be conducted to discover these bounds in all publick actions publick persons believing that it is for the publick interesse as indeed it is to observe them in their proceedings If that cannot be obtained it is vaine to demand why God hath given a Law which by the partialities of the world may become uselesse and not serve to direct particular mens proceedings with quiet much more to argue that there is no such Law because it does not For we know both that God gives no Lawes but to them to whom he gives free choice to observe them or not And also that he hath given the Gospel and Christianity upon condition of bearing Christs Crosse whereof the vexations which the partialities framed upon occasion of this Law doe produce is a part Now the indowment of the Church being part of the subject of of Ecclesiasticall Law it will be requisite here to say how it is and how it is not exempt from secular right Seeing then that all Christian states and kingdomes acknowledging the Church a Corporation founded by God and
not that which is invisible by their authority in point of right For want of this authority whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being voide before God I will not examine whether the forme wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they thinke fit to exercise agree with the ground and intent of the Church or not Only I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the body and blood of Christ without which the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist Whether having departed from the Church Presbyteries and Congregations scorne to learne any part of their duty from the Church least that might seeme to weaken the ground of their departure Or whether they intend that the elements remaine meere signes to strengthen mens faith that they are of the number of the elect which they are before they be consecrated as much as afterwards The want of Consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministred the ministring of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity renders it much more On the other side the succession of Pastors from the Apostles or those who received their authority from the Apostles is taken for a sufficient presumption on behalfe of the Church of Rome that it is Catholick But I have showed that the Tradition of Faith and the authority of the Scriptures which containe it is more ancient then the being of the Church and presupposed to the same as a condition upon which it standeth That the authority of the Apostles and the Powers left by them in and with the Church the one is originally the effective cause the other immediately the Law by which it subsisteth and in which the government thereof consisteth That the Church hath Power in Lawes of lesse consequence though given the Church by the Apostles though recorded by the Scriptures where that change which succeeds in the state of Christendome renders them uselesse to preserve the unity of the Church presupposing the Faith in order to the publick service of God But neither can the Church have power in the faith to add to take away to change any thing in that profession of Christianity wherein the salvation of all Christians consisteth and which the being of the Church presupposeth Nor in that act of the Apostles authority whereby the unity of the Church was founded and setled Nor in that service of God for which it was provided There is therefore something else requisite to evidence the Church of Rome to be the true Church exclusive to the Reformation then the visible succession of Pastors though that by the premises be one of the Laws that concurre to make every Church a Catholicke Church The Faith upon which the powers constituted by the Apostles in which the forme of government by which the service of God for which it subsisteth If these be not maintained according to the Scriptures interpreted by the originall and Catholicke Tradition of the Church it is in vaine to alledge the personall succession of Pastors though that be one ingredient in the government of it without which neither could the Faith be preserved nor the service of God maintained though with it they might possibly faile of being preserved and maintained for a mark of the true Church The Preaching of that Word and that Ministring of the Sacraments understanding by that particular all the offices of Gods publicke service in the Church which the Tradition of the Whole limiteth the Scriptures interpreted thereby to teach is the onely marke as afore to make the Church visible To come then to our case Is it therefore become warrantable to communicate with the Church of Rome because it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries or Congregations This is indeed the rest of the difficulty which it is the whole businesse of this Book to resolve To which I must answer that absolutely the case is as it was though comparatively much otherwise For if the State of Religion be the same at Rome but in England farre worse then it was the condition upon which communion with the Church of Rome is obtained is never a whit more agreeable to Christianity then afore but it is become more pardonable for him that sees what he ought to avoide not to see what he ought to follow He that is admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by the Bull of profession of Faith inacted by Pius IV. Pope not by the Councile of Trent besides many particulars there added to the Creed which whether true or false according to the premises he sweares to as much as to his Creed at length professes to admit without doubting whatsoever else the sacred Canons and generall Councils especially the Synode of Trent hath delivered decreed and declared damning and rejecting as anathema whatsoever the Church damneth and rejecteth for heresie under anathema But whether the whole Church or the present Church the oath limiteth not Here is no formall and expresse profession that a man believes the present Church to be Infallible And therefore it was justly alledged in the first Booke that â—he Church hath never enjoyned the professing of it But here is a just ground for a reasonable Construction that it is hereby intended to be exacted because a man swears to admit the acts of Counciles as he does to admit his Creed and the holy Scriptures Nor can there be a more effectuall challenge of that priviledge then the use of it in the decree of the Councile that the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha be admitted with the like reverence as the unquestionable Canonicall Scriptures being all injoyned to be received as all of one rancke Which before the decree had never been injoyned to be received but with that difference which had alwaies been acknowledged in the Church For this act giving them the authority of prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not afore though it involve a nullity because that which was not inspired by God to him that writ it when he writ it can never have the authority of inspired by God because it can never become inspired by God Nor can become known that it was indeed inspired by God not having been so received from the begining without revelation anew to that purpose yet usurpeth Infallibility because it injoyneth that which no authority but that which immediate revelation createth can injoyne Further the decree of the Councile concerning justification involving a mistake in the terme and understanding by it the infusion of grace whereby the righteousnesse that dwelleth in a Christian is formally and properly that which settles him in the state of righteous before God not fundamentally and metonymically that which is required in him that is estated in the same by God in consideration of our Lord Christ Though I maintaine that this decree prejudiceth not the substance of Christianity Yet must it not be allowed to expresse the true reason by which it
of fact to be the same For the Unity of so great a Body will not allow that the terms should be strict or nice upon which the communion thereof standeth But obligeth all tâ—at love the general good of it to pass by even those imperfections in the Laws of it which are visible if not pernicious But where this Unity is once broken in pieces and destroyeâ— and palliating cures are out of date the offense which is taken at showing the true cure is imputable to them that cause the fraction not to him that would â—ee it restored For what disease was ever cured without offending the body that had it The cause of Episcopacy and of the Service is the cause of the whole Church and the maintenance thereof inferreth the maintenance of whatsoever is Catholick Owning therefore my obligation to the Whole Church notwithstanding my obligation to the Church of England I have prescribed the consent thereof for a boundary to all interpretation of Scripture all Reformation in the Church Referring my â—pinion â—n point of Fact what is Catholick to them who by their Title are bound to acknowledg that whatsoever is Catholick ought to take place While all English people by the Laws of the Church of England had suffiâ—iâ—nâ— and probable means of salvation ministred to them it had been a fault to acknowledg a fault which it was more mischief to mâ—nd than to bear with But when the Unity that is lost may as well be obtained by the primitive Truth and Order of the Catholick Church as by that which served the turn in the Church of England because it served to the salvation of more I should offend good Christians to think that they will stand offended at it In fine all variety of Religion in England seems to be comprised in three parties Papists Prelatical and Puritanes comprehending under that all parties into which the once common name stands divided All of them are originally as I conceive terms of disgrace which therefore I have not been delighted with using This last I have found some cause to frequent when I would signifie some thing common to all parties of it If with eagerness at any time the English Proverb says Loosers may have leave to speak I finde my self disobliged by the Papists in that desiring to serve God with all Christians they barr mee their CoÌ„munion by clogging it with conditions inconsistent with our common Christianity I finde my self disobliged by the Puritanes in that desiring to serve God with all Christians but acknowledging the Catholick Church I stand obliged by the Rule of it not to communicate with Hereticks or Schismaticks I complain for no Benefice or other advantage That desiring to communicate with all Christians I am confined for opportunity of serving God with his Church to the scartered remains of the Church of England is that for which I complain If owning this offense I suffer mine indignation at the pretense of Inâ—allibility or of Reformation to escape from mee I do not therefore intend to revenge my self by words of disgrace Let him that thinks so call mee Prelatical let him use mee with no more moderation than I use In the mean time I remain secured that the offense which my opinion may give is imputable in the sight of God to those that cause the division One offense I acknowledg and cannot help That I undertake a design of this consequence and am not able to go through with it as it deserves I should not have set Pen to paper till my materials had been prepared in writing that no term might have escaped mee unexamined Till the quotations of mine Authors had been all before mee so as to need no recourse to the Copies A labor which I have not been able every where to undergo In fine till I had cleared all pretense of obscurity or ambiguity in my language For the obscurity of my mater I am not sory for If writing in English because here the occasion commences the reasons by which I determine the sense of the Scriptures in the Original if the consequence oâ— it in some maters seem obscure I conceive it ought to teach the World that the people are made parties to those disputes whereof they are not able to be judges And I am willing to bear the blame of obscure if that lesson may be learned by the people The desire of easing my thoughts by giving them vent hath resolved mee to put them into the world â—ough-baked on purpose to provoke the judgments of all parties â—or the furnishing of a second Edition if God grant mee life with that which shall be missing in this I am therefore content to confine my self to the model of an abridgment and referr my self for the consent of the Church to those books which I am best satiâ—fied with in each point When that could not be done I have alleged authorities which I may call translatitias because I lay them down as I finde them alleged Not doubting that I justifie my opinion so farr as I desire to do here that there is no consent of the Church against it What the sense of the Church is positively and hath been into which I conceive that which here I say hath made mee a fair entrance I shall upon examination of particulars indeavor to give satisfaction in that which may be found missing here In the mean time it shall suffice to have advanced thus much towards the common interest of Christianity in the re-union of the Church But let no man therefore barre mee the lot of Reconcilers To be contradicted on all sides I profess no such thing It is enough for the greatest Powers in Christendom to undertake If it be an offense for a man of my years equally concerned with all Christians in our common Christianity to say his opinion upon what terms the parties ought to reconcile themselves it remains that offenses remain unreconcileable But contradiction from all parties I shall not be displeased with Hee that will tell mee alone in writing what hee findes fault with and why shall do a work of charity to mee alone Hee that will tell the world the same shall do mee the same charity that hee does the world in it Hee who can delight in that barbarous course which Controversies in Religion have been managed with among Christians by casting personal aspersions Let him rather do it than be silent provided the stuff hee brings be considerable to bear out such inhumanity among civil people But let him consider the dependences and concernments of the point hee speaks to let him not say for answer that these things are answered by our Divines It is easie to make â—bjections but not easie to clear difficulties And whether or no these difficulties were clear already I must referr it to the Reader to judge In the mean time though no arbitrator to chuse a middle opinion for partiâ—s to agree in I take upon mee the person of a Divâ—ne in
CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given to the Apostles and exercised by excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatâ—ment of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks CHAP. X. Evidence of the Apostles act from the effect of it in preserving the Vnity of the Church Of the businesse of Marcion and Montanus That about keeping Easter That of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of Dionysius Alexandrinus and Arius Of communicatory leters and the intercourse of the Church under and after the Apostles CHAP. XI Upon what grounds the first book de Synedriis holds that the Church cannot excommunicate Before the law there was no such Power nor by it Christians went for Jewes under the Apostles His sense of some Scriptures What the Leviathan saith in generall concerning the Power of the Church Both suppose that Ecclesiasticall Power includeth Temporall which is not true Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis CHAP. XII That the Law expresly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it required was grounded upon reason from the true God the tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than he precepts of the Law the lâ—ve of our Neighbor onely to Jews Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law CHAP. XIII That the Law tendereth no other promise but that of the Land of Canaan How the Resurrection is signified by the Prophets Expresse texts of the Apostles Their Arguments and the Arguments of our Lord do suppose the mystical sense of the Scriptures That this sense is to be made good throughout the Scripture wheresoever the ground of it takes place Christianity well grounded supposing this What parts of Scripture may be questionable whether they have a mysticall sense or not The sayings and doings of our Lord have it As also those passages of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by the same The sense of the Fathers CHAP. XIV The Leviathans opinion that Christ came to restore that Kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Sâ—muel It overthroweth the foundation of Christianity The true Government of Gods ancient people The name of the Church in the New Testament cannot signifie the Synagogue Nor any Christian State CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were nâ—t of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the state had stood CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The Right of the Church to Tythes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jews It is not necessary that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing That the incestuous person at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul Jurisdiction of the Church Telling the Church binding and loosing holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicanâ— signifie the same The coherence of our Lords discourse Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians How it may be said to be voluntary Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians CHAP XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The dâ—fference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Seculâ—r Power in determining maters of faith presuppâ—seâ—h the Socieâ—y of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to profâ—sse tâ—e contrary of that which he believeth Every man is bound to professe thâ—t Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chiefe Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather then the State neither being infallible 146 CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense The Power of binding and loosing supposeth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel but the outward act of Faith Christians are not at liberty to cast themselves in what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselvss in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannâ—t punish for Relâ—gion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlâ—sse the Church determine the mater of it 151 CHAP. XXI How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable marke of Heresie That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles Some things delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures may not oblige S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions 159 CHAP. XXII The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Learning or Holinesse How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth The pre-eminence of the Primitive The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church Of Arnobius Lactantius Tertulliâ—n Origen Clemens and the approbation of Posterity 165 CHAP. XXIII Two iâ—stances against the premises besides the obâ—ection concerning the beginning of Antichrist under the Apostles The General answer to it The seven Trumpeâ—s in the Apocalypse fore-tell the destruction of the Jewes The seven Vials the plagues inflicted upon the Empire for the ten persecutions The correspondence of Daniels Prophesie inferreth the same Neither S. Pauls Prophesie nor S. Johns concerneth any Christian Neither the opinion of the Chiliasts nor the the giving of the Eucharist to Infants new Baptized Catholick 169 CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable conceâ—rning the Scripture Vpon what terms the Church may or
the Church to be the onely infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith necessarily suppose that the Church is by Gods appointment that is Jure divino a Corporation Society or Body of men visible though not Civil because standing upon Gods will revealed in order to the happinesse of the world to come In which Society because in no Society all that are Interessed can act for themselvs it behooveth that there be a publick Authority vested in some persons or Bodies the Act whereof may oblige the whole And thus it may and must be understood that the Church is maintained to be Judge in Controversies of Faith by the definitive sentence of those that have authority to oblige the Body Whether Pope or Council wee dispute not here or what else may be imagined For that as all other Controversies in Religion is to be decided by the resolution of the point now in hand what is the means to determine by reason all such differences Which if it could not be decided without supposing whose authority is to tye the Church there could be no end of differences in the Church whatsoever there will be Here is then an opinion famous enough that the Church is indowed with a gift of Infallability by virtue whereof whatsoever sentence is passed by them that are authorized on behalf of the Church becomes matter of Faith and obliges all men to receive it by the same reason for which they receive the Christian Faith Now they who in opposition to this opinion do maintain the Scriptures to be the onely Judge in Controversies of Faith do involve in this opposition an equivocation manifest enough For it is manifest that their intent is to render a reason by this position why they submit not to that sentence which condemneth their positions in the name of the Church To wit because it is contrary to the Scriptures And further why they with-draw themselves from the communion of that Church which condemneth them and joyn in communion grounded upon the profession of the positions condemned maintaining themselves thereupon to be the true Church of God and those that condemne them the corrupt and counterfeit Whereby it appeareth that in effect they do maintain that there is no Judge provided by God to be visible in his Church with the gift of Infallible But that they are themselves and ought to be Judges to condemne all sentences given against the Scripture by any authority established in the Church By which means the Scripture becomes no more the Judge but the Rule or the Law by which men are to judge Whether they are to stand to such sentences as are given in the name of the Church or not Now if the Scripture be the Law or the Rule by which Controversies of Faith are to be judged there will be no pretense to exclude any means that may serve as evidence to clear the meaning of it And therefore there will be no cause why the Tradition of the Church should not be joyned with the Scripture in deciding Controversies of Faith Not disputing hitherto whether or no it contain any thing that the Scripture containeth not to clear and to determine the sense of the Scripture Whereas they that maintain the sentence of the present Church to be the reason of believing can no way resolve their belief into the Tradition of the Catholick Church Because that supposes only the act of our Lord and his Apostles delivering to the Church that which it holdeth Which who so supposeth can allege no other reason why hee believeth And therefore the sentence of the present Church cannot be the reason why any man should believe that which there was reason from the beginning to believe without it They who to exclude the Tradition of the Church state this position upon these terms That all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures pretending to limit the generality of the question put it upon an issue not to be tryed till wee have resolved what means there is to determine the meaning of the Scripture For to be necessary to salvation is to be true and something more So that nothing can appear necessary to salvation till it can appear to be true Nor appear to be true untill it can be resolved what means there is to distinguish between true and false Besides how unlimited this limitation is may appear by this Because whatsoever is clear is said to be clear in relation to some sight And there is so much difference between the sight of several Christians that nothing can be said to be clear to all because it is clear to some And that which is not clear to all whose salvation is concerned in it what availes it those to whom it is not clear Now I suppose those that advance these termes will not grant that nothing is necessary to salvation that may be questioned by an argument out of the Scripture which all Christians cannot answer Knowing that such things as themselvs hold necessary to salvation may be assalted by such reasons out of the Scripture as they do not think all Christians fit to resolve Besides they do not pretend that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scripture of themselvs but by consequence of reason which may make them clear Now hee that would draw true consequences from the Scripture had need be well informed of the mater of that Scripture which hee drawes into consequence And to that information how can it appear that any thing is more necessary than the Tradition of the Church Therefore though I say not yet whether it be true or false that all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures yet at the present I say that this is not the prime truth which must give a reason of all that followes upon it but demands a reason to be given for it by those principles upon which the resolution of all maters of Faith depends All this while wee agree upon the supposition that the Church is a Society of men subsisting by Gods revealed will distinct from all other Societies Because as I said those that have departed from the Church of Rome have hitherto pretended their own communion to be the true Church For if it be said that they do not or scarce ever did agree in communion one with another so that they can pretend to constitute all one Church That is not because they do not think that they ought all to constitute one Church but because they agree not upon the conditions Each part thinking that the other doth not believe as those whom they may communicate with ought to believe But this is now manifestly contradicted by two opinions among us though the one can be no â—ect the other as yet appears not to be one The first is that of them that think themselves above Ordinances the Communion of the Church onely obliging proficients and every perfect Christian being to himself a Church Of these
is sufficient to evidence that it is the word of God which they contain This if wee can resolve in our way perhaps wee may discover ground to stand upon when wee come to the main Hee that sayes the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves exposes them to the scorn of unbelievers by tying himself to use no other reason for them least for that reason they should finde that credit which the seeking of it showes they had not of themselves Hee that sayes they are to be believed for the authority of the Church is bound to give account how wee shall know both that there is a Church which some persons may oblige And who is the Church that is who be the men whose act obliges the Church And that without alleging Scripture because hitherto wee have no reason to receive it And being but men how their Act obliges the Church which cannot be showed without showing that God hath founded a Corporation of his Church and given power to some men or some qualities or ranks of men in it to oblige the whole Which how it will be showed without means to determine the sense of the Scriptures the parties agreeing in nothing but the truth of Christianity and of the Scriptures is impossible to be said This position then induces that stop to all proceeding by reason which Logicians call a Circle When a man disputes in a round as a mill-horse grindes arguing this power to be in the Church by the Scriptures without which hee can say nothing to it and arguing the truth of the Scriptures back again by alleging the authority of the Church Which destroyes that supposition upon which all dispute of reason proceeds that nothing can be proved but by that which is better known than that which it proveth But are those that allege the spirit for the evidence upon which they receive the Scripture lesse subject to this inconvenience For is it not manifest that men may and do delude themselves with an imagination that Gods Spirit tells them that which their own Spirit without Gods Spirit conceives How then shall it discerned what comes from Gods Spirit what does not without supposing the Scriptures by which the mater thereof is discernable And is not this the same Circle to prove the truth of the Scriptures by the dictate of Gods Spirit and that by alleging the Scriptures To make the ground of this inconvenience still more evident I will here insist upon this presumption That the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposeth Christianity that is the belief and profession of the Christian Faith And therefore that no man can know that hee hath the Holy Ghost but hee must first know the truth of Christianity and of the Scriptures Not that it is my meaning either to suppose or prove in this place that whoso hath the Spirit of God doth or may know that hee hath it For that is one of those controversies which wee are seeking principles to resolve But that no man can know that hee hath the Spirit of God unlesse first hee know himself to be a true Christian That is to say that supposing for the present but not granting that a man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit and that it is Gods Spirit which moves him to believe this or that hee must first know what is true Christianity and by consequence the means to discern between true and false And this I propose for an assumption necessary to the evidencing of that which followes but not questioned by any party in the Church because it is a principle in Christianity that the Grace of the Holy Ghost is a promise peculiar to those that undertake it Who were they on whom the Holy Ghost was first bestowed Was it not the Apostles and the rest of Disciples assembled to serve God with the Offices of the Church that is to say already Christians When Philip had converted the Samaritanes came S. Peter and S. John to give them the Holy Ghost by laying on their hands till they were baptized Concerning the Disciples at Ephesus Acts XIX 1-6 there is some dispute whether they received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of S. Pauls hands by virtue of the Baptism of John which they had received before they met with S. Paul or whether they were baptized over and above with the baptisme of Christ and thereupon received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands But of this they that will have them to have been baptized only with S. Johns baptisme make no dispute that they were fully made Christians by it Can any thing be clearer than S. Pauls words Gal. II. 2-5 That by the hearing of Faith that is obeying it they had received the Holy Ghost which by the works of the Law they could not receive And 2 Cor. XI 4. If hee that cometh preach another Jesus whom wee preached not or yee receive another Spirit which yee received not or another Gospel which yee admitted not Another Jesus another Gospel inferreth another Spirit So Gal. III. 14. That the blessing of Abraham may come upon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus that yee may receive the promise of the Holy Ghost by Faith The promise of the Holy Ghost then supposeth the condition of Faith And Gal. IV. 6. Because yee are sons therefore God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father Heb. VI. 6. It is impossible for those that were once inlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and became partakers of the Holy Ghost Upon inlightening that is baptisme followes the participation of the H. Ghost And seeing the resurrection of the flesh unto glory is ascribed by S. Paul to the Spirit of God that dwelt in it while it lived upon earth Rom. VIII 10 11. as the resurrection of our Lord Christ is ascribed to the Spirit of holinesse that dwelt in him without measure Rom. I. 4. John III. 34. of necessity the Holy Ghost dwelleth in all them that shall rise to glory But Baptisme assureth resurrection to glory Therefore it assureth the Holy Ghost by which they rise Nor can it be understood how wee are the Temple of God because the Spirit of God dwelleth in us 1 Cor. III. 16. but because the promise of the Holy Ghost dependeth upon that which distinguisheth Christians from other people In fine when our Saviour promiseth John XIV 23. If any man love mee hee will keep my word and my Father will love him and wee will come to him and abide with him Seeing the Father and the Son do dwell in those that love God by the grace of the Holy Ghost the gift of the Holy Ghost of necessity supposeth the love of God in them that have it And yet his discourse is more effectual Rom. VIII 1-9 That there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit For as hee inferreth that if any man have not the
therefore that Christians do believe for the same reasons for the which Infidels ought to believe I shall yield that it is onely the credit of Gods ancient people and of Christs Church that maâ—â—â— evidence that those miracles were truly done which I affirm to be the onely motive to believe being done at such distance of time and place from us But let not those that would learn mistake what is meant by the name of the Church For if you suppose the Church to be a Society of men whereof some by Gods appointment have power to oblige the whole then will the credit of the Scripture be resolved into the authority of the Church if the truth of those miracles on which alone the credit thereof is said to depend be grounded upon such a witnesse of the Church But my meaning is to suppose no more by the name of the Church in this place but the whole number of believers from Christ to the worlds end And so to say that there is no other reason why wee believe that such men as Moses and the Prophets as our Lord and his Apostles did such works as the Scriptures report to evidence that they came from God but the consent of all Christians that have imbraced the Gospel upon that motive Neither shall the Gospel hereby depend more upon the witnesse of man which may fail than it depends upon the witnesse of him who upon seeing what was done by our Lord and his Apostles should be moved to imbrace the Faith For though they had not taken effect with him but for the report of his eyes yet did not the force of them depend upon it Hee that considers shall finde that the consent of all believers in the whole motive of Faith more than supplies the use of our eyes in showing us sufficient reason to believe There is a distance of place as well as of time And God forbid wee should say those that never saw our Lord and his Apostles do the works for which wee believe had not sufficient reason to believe Their ears supplyed to them the use of their eyes inasmuch as experience and common sense shows that those things wherein the world agrees are no lesse certain and evident though morally than those which wee see with our eies Hee that should not traffick into the East or West-Indies or travail to Rome or Constantinople before hee had seen them must resolve not to see them The reason is because the world can have no common interest to deceive or to be deceived Much lesse could the Law of Moses least of all the Gospel of Christ have found credit the one imposing such an endlesse morosity of precepts to observe the other the Crosse of Christ had it not been originally manifest that such things were done to evidence that and this By which it appears that this reason supposes no authority in the Church founded upon the Gospel as a Society communicating in it because it supposes the same in the people of the Jewes as in the Church The authority of the Church standing upon the Gospel that which was over the Jewes on the Law whereof the one was to be removed when the other took place The reason because it referreth nothing to the Church but that intelligency which the community of mankinde furnish one another with for assurance in those things whereof all cannot be eye-witnesses by the consent of all which common reason makes to be as good evidence as our own senses And now it will not be difficult to say how the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves For inasmuch as the motives of believing are things recorded in Scripture it will be necessary to grant that the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves which are to be believed for those things which the Scriptures report But if wee be further demanded for what reason those motives which if true are sufficient to oblige all men to believe are taken to be true Hee that saies because they are recorded in the Scriptures grants that there is no reason to believe the Scriptures granting that there is no reason to believe the motives of faith but the report of those Scriptures the belief whereof supposes the truth of those motives But if wee impute the belief of that truth to the common sense of all who upon the supposition of them have submitted to Christianity and hold it wee have the whole truth of the Scripture evidenced upon such a ground as shall serve to inforce a resolution of whatsoever is questionable in Christianity upon it Whereas they who make the authority of the Church or the dictate of the Holy Ghost the reason of believing must either stand still when they are demanded the reason or give it by supposing Christianity and the Scriptures the truth whereof they pretend to prove by it which is the Circle that I spoke of afore admitting neither principle nor conclusion of discourse To confirm that which hath been said let me demand how the Writings of Homer or Virgil of Aristotle or Plato of Tully or Demosthenes of Hippocrates or Galen come to be admitted without any question for their Writings after some two thousand years more or lesse Is it not because ever since they were penned there have been those that have studied them for paterns of good Language and Oratory for the lest authors in Philosophy and Physick Because by them and through their hands they have been transmitted from age to age Is not their credit by this means so unquestionable that a man would be laught at that should ask other reason for it And yet what is this in comparison of that which is to be said for the Scriptures That all nations having starred aside to worship many Gods one people of the Jewes took upon them the worship of the onely true God according to the Lawes recorded in the books of Moses and that of so ancient time That being planted in the land of Canaan God stirred them up Prophets from age to age to keep them close to the service of their God That howsoever they kept them they alwaies professed to be under those Lawes as Gods That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles by commission from him in due time preached both Jewes and Gentiles to be rebels against God And that neither the Law of nature nor of Moses was able to free them from sin Tendering in Gods name the terms upon which all may be reconciled to God and evidencing their Commission by the works which they did in Gods name That all parts of the civil world being by that means convicted of the truth hereof undertook to professe Christianity notwithstanding the persecutions to which it was lyable and do continue in it till this time Is not this infallible evidence that wee have the very Writings of Moses and of the Prophets and Apostles and that they who left them us were sent by God seeing them admitted for Lawes to mens lives and conversations which
nothing but sufficient evidence that they came from God could have brought to passe Here if any man should say I know I have the Writings of Homer Aristotle or Tully by the Writings themselvs he might be convicted by tendering them to one that knowes nothing of Tully or Homer or Aristotle and asking him whether hee can say by those books whether they be Homers or Aristotles or Tullies Writings Bu◠he that first understands what account the world alwaies hath had their Writings in and studying them finds the marks in them may well say that hee knows the authors by their Writings So tender the Scripture in Ebrew or Greek to a savage of the West-Indies and ask him whether they be the Word of God or not who believes not in God as yet do you believe hee can tell you the truth But convict him of that which I have said how and by what means they came to our hands how they have been and are owned for Lawes to the hearts and lives of Gods people and hee will stand convict to God if hee believe not finding that written in the Books which the men own for the rule of their conversations So by the same means that all records of Learning are conveyed us are the Scriptures evidenced to be mater of historical faith But inasmuch as the mater of them had never been received but by the work of God in that regard they become mater of supernatural faith in regard of the reason moving in the nature of an object to believe as well as in regard of Gods grace moving in the nature of an effective cause I know there have been divers answers made to assoile this difficulty by those that dispute Controversies That the Scriptures authority is better known in order of nature the Churches in that order by which wee get our knowledg as Logicians and Philosophers use to distinguish between notius naturâ and notius nobis because our knowledg rises upon experience which wee have by sense of particulars and yet the general reason being once attained by that means is in some sense better known than that which depends upon it That the authority of the Scripture is the reason why wee believe but the authority of the Church a condition requisite to the same creating in the mindes of men that discreetly consider it a kinde of inferior Faith though infallible which disposes a man to accept the mater of that Faith which God onely revealeth though the reason why we believe is only the act of God revealing that which he obligeth us to believe But all this to no purpose so long as they suppose the foundation of the Church in the nature of a Corporation for the ground of admitting the mater of Faith not the credit of all believers agreeing in witnessing the motives of Faith I remember in my yonger time in Cambridge an observation out of Averrois the Saracene his Commentaries upon Aristotle which as I finde exactly true so may it be of good use That in Geometry and the Mathematicks the same thing is notius naturâ and nobis to wit the first principles and rudiments of those sciences which being evident as soon as understood produce in time those conclusions which no stranger to those studies can imagine how they should be discovered For being offered to the understanding that comprehendsthe meaning of them they require no experience of particulars with sense time brings forth to frame a general conceit of that in which all agree or to pronounce what holds in all particulars Because it is immediately evident that the same holds in all particulars as in one which a man has before his eyes The like is to be said of the processe in hand though the reason be farre otherwise Hee that considers may see that the motives of Faith assured to the common sense and reason of all men by the consent of believers are immediately the reason why wee believe the Scriptures in which they are recorded to be the Word of God without so much as supposing any such thing as a Church in the nature of a Corporation indowed with authority over those of whom it consists The consent of Christians as particular persons obliging common reason both to believe the Scriptures and whatever that belief inferres As this must be known before wee can believe the Scriptures so being known it must be if any be the onely reason why we believe either the Scriptures or that Christianity which they convey unto us And if it be the onely reason why wee believe then is it better known in order of reason as well as of sense to be true than the authority of the Church the knowledg whereof must resolve into the reason why wee are Christians And if this be true then is not the authority of the Church as a Corporation to be obliged by the act of some members so much as a condition requisite to induce any man to believe All men by having the onely true reason why all are to believe being subject to condemnation if they believe not But not if they believe not the Corporation of the Church unlesse it may appeare to be a part of that Faith which that onely reason moves us to believe Neither doth the credit which wee give to all Christians witnessing the motives of Faith to be true by submitting to Christianity in regard of them create in us any inferior Faith of the nature of humane because the witnesse of man convayes the motives thereof to our knowledg But serves us to the same use as mens eyes and other senses served them when they saw those things done which Moses and the Prophets which our Lord and his Apostles did to induce men to believe that they came from God For as true as it is that if God have provided such signs to attest his Commission then we are bound to believe So true is it that if all Christians agree that God did procure them to be done then did hee indeed procute them to be done that men might believe For so great a part of mankinde could not be out of their wits all at once Let not therefore those miracles which God hath provided to attest the Commissions of Moses and the Prophets of our Lord and his Apostles be counted common and probable motives to believe unlesse wee will confesse that wee have none but common and probable motives For what reason can wee have to believe that shall not depend upon their credit Unlesse it be the light of natural reason which may make that which they preach more evidently credible but never evidently true If these works were provided by God to oblige us to believe then is that Faith which they create truely divine and the work of God Though had all men been blinde they had not been seen and had all men been out of their wits wee might presume that they had agreed in an imposture And now it will be easie to answer the
words of S. Augustine contra Epistolam fundamenti cap. V. which alwaies have a place in this dispute though I can as yet admit S. Augustine no otherwise than as a particular Christian and his saying as a presumption that hee hath said no more than any Christian would have said in the common cause of all Christians against the Manichees Ego Evangelio non crederem saith hee nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae moveret authoritas I would not believe or have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholick Church moved mee For some men have imployed a great deal of learning to show that moveret stands for movisset as in many other places both of S. Augustine and of other Africane Writers And without doubt they have showed it past contradiction and I would make no doubt to show the like in S. Hierome Sidonius and other Writers of the decaying ages of the Latine tongue as well as in the Africane Writers if it were any thing to the purpose For is not the Question manifestly what it is that obligeth that man to believe who as yet believeth not Is it not the same reason that obliges him to become and to be a Christian Therefore whether moveret or movisset all is one The Question is whether the authority of the Church as a Corporation that is of those persons who are able to oblige the Church would have moved S. Austine to believe the Gospel because they held it to be true Or the credit of the Church as of so many men of common sense attesting the truth of those reasons which the Gospel tenders why wee ought to believe What is it then that obliged S. Austine to the Church The consent of people and nations that authority which miracles had begun which hope had nourished charity increased succession of time settled from S. Peter to the present the name and title of Catholick so visible that no Heretick durst show a man the way to his Church demanding the way to the Catholick So hee expresseth it cap. 111. And what is this in English but the conversion of the Gentiles foretold by the Prophets attested by God and visibly settled in the Unity of the Church Whereupon hee may boldly affirm as hee doth afterwards that if there were any word in the Gospel manifestly witnessing Manes to be the Apostle of Christ hee would not believe the Gospel any more For if the reason for which hee had once believed the Church that the Gospel is true because hee saw it verified in the being of the Church should be supposed false there could remain no reason to oblige us to take the Gospel for true All that remaines for the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation by this account will be this That it is more discretion for him that is in doubt of the truth of Christianity to take the reason of it from the Church that is from those whom the Church trusteth to give it than from particular Christians who can by no means be presumed to understand it so well as they may do For otherwise supposing a particular Christian sets forth the same reasons which the Church does how can any man not be bound to follow him that is bound to follow the Church So that the reasons which both allege being contained in the Scriptures the Church is no more in comparison of the Scriptures than the Samaritane in comparison of our Lord himself when her fellow-citizens tell her John IV. 12. Wee believe no more for thy saying For wee our selves have heard and know that this is of a truth the Saviour of the World the Christ For the reasons for which our Lord himself tells us that wee are to believe are contained in the Scriptures But by the premises it will be most manifest that the same Circle in discourse is committed by them who resolve the reason why they believe into the dictate of the Spirit as into the decree of the Church For the question is not now of the effective cause whether or no in that nature a man is able to imbrace the true Faith without the assistance of Gods Spirit or not Which ought here to remain questionable because it is to be tried upon the grounds upon which here wee are seeking And therefore that Faith which is grounded upon revelation from God and competent evidence of the same is to be counted divine supernatural Faith without granting whatsoever wee may suppose any supernatural operation of Gods Spirit to work it in the nature of an effective cause which must remain questionable supposing the reason why wee believe the Scriptures But in the nature of an object presenting unto the understanding the reason why we are to believe it is manifest by the premises that no man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit that knoweth not the truth of the Scriptures If therefore hee allege that hee knowes the Scriptures to be true because Gods Spirit saith so to his Spirit hee allegeth for a reason that which hee could not know but supposing that for granted which hee pretendeth to prove To wit That the dictate of his own Spirit is from Gods Spirit Indeed when the motives of Faith proceed from Gods Spirit in Moses and the Prophets in our Lord and his Apostles witnessing by the works which they do their Commission as well as their message who can deny that this is the light of Gods Spirit Again when wee govern our doings by that which wee believe and not by that which wee see who will deny that this is the light of Faith and of Gods Spirit But both these considerations take place though wee suppose the mater of Faith to remain obscure in it self though to us evidently credible for the reasons God showes us to believe that hee saith it If any man seek in the mater of Faith any evidence to assure the conscience in the nature of an object or reason why wee are to believe that is not derived from the motives of Faith outwardly attesting Gods act of revealing it hee falls into the same inconvenience with those who believe their Christianity because the Church commends it and again the Church because Christianity commends it As for that monstrous imagination that the Scripture is not Law to oblige any man in justice to believe it before the Secular Powers give it force over their subjects Supposing for the present that which I said before that it is all one question whether Christianity or whether the Scriptures oblige us as Law or not Let mee demand whether our Lord Christ and his Apostles have showed us sufficient reasons to convince us that wee are bound to believe and become Christians If not why are wee Christians If so can wee be obliged and no Law to oblige us supposing for the present though not granting because it is not true that by refusing Christianity sufficiently proposed a man comes not under sin but onely comes not from under it but
who professe the true Christ Nor under the Law were granted but to those who professed the true God And for this cause they are called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. the manifestation of the Spirit because they manifest the presence of God in his Church As 1 Cor. XIV 22-25 hee saith that unbelievers seeing the secrets of their hearts revealed by those graces were moved to fall on their faces and worship God declaring that God is in his Church of a truth Those therefore who are thus witnessed by God upon his witnesse are to be received whatsoever they deliver in Gods name concerning either the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ For how can any man imagine that upon every new revelation declared by a Prophet upon every new letter written or act done by an Apostle a new evidence should be requisite to attest a new Commission from God Especially the presumption that God will not suffer his people to be abused by trusting him being necessary and not onely reasonable Since therefore our Lord and his Apostles carry this quality no lesse than did Moses and the Prophets it followes of necessity that their writings and what else they may have ordained are no lesse the Law of God no lesse obliging than the Law of Moses by virtue of their Commission which makes their acts in Gods name to be Gods acts Though civil Law they are not till civil Powers binde them upon their Subjects CHAP. IV. Neither the Dictate of Gods Spirit nor the authority of the Church is the reason of believing any thing in Christianity Whether the Church be before the Scripture or the Scripture before the Church The Scriptures contain not the Infallibility of the Church Nor the consent of all Christians IT is now time to proceed to the resolution of some part of those disputes and opinions which wee showed the world divided into upon occasion of the question how Controversies of Faith are to be tryed and ended That is to say so much of them as must be determined by him that will proceed in this dispute For supposing the premises to be true I shall not make any difficulty to conclude That neither the dictate of the Spirit of God to the Spirits of particular Christians that is the presumption of it nor the authority of the Church that is the presumption of the like dictate to any persons that may be thought to have power of obliging the Church is a competent reason to decide the meaning of the Scripture or any Controversie about mater of Faith obliging any man therefore to believe it And by consequence that the authority of the Church that is of persons authorized to give sentence in behalf of the Body of the Church here understood is not Infallible which if it were it must be without question admitted for a competent reason of believing all such sentences to be Infallibly true The truth of this Conclusion is demonstrated by the premises if any thing in a mater of this nature can be counted demonstrative If whatsoever the Spirit of God can be presumed to dictate to the Spirit of any Christian presupposeth the truth of Christianity as that which must try it whether onely a presumption or truth then can no mans word that professes Christianity be the reason why another man should believe For whosoever it is that gives the sentence by professing Christianity pretendeth to have a reason for what hee professeth which reason and not his judgment if it be good obligeth all Christians as well as him to believe For being once resolved that wee are obliged to believe whatsoever comes from those persons whom wee are convinced to believe that God imployed to declare his will to us Whatsoever is said to come from them must for the same reason be received and therefore by the same meanes said to come from them as it is said that they came from God On the other side whatsoever cannot by the same means be said to come from them can never by any means be said to come from God who hath given us no other means to know what hee would have us believe but those whom hee hath imployed on his message Wherefore seeing the authority of the Church supposeth the truth of Christianity of necessity it supposeth the reason for which whatsoever can be pretended to belong to Christianity is receivable Because supposing for the present though not granting that the Church is a Body which some persons by Gods appointment have authority to oblige it is manifest that no man can be vested with this authority but hee must bear the profession of a Christian and by consequence suppose the reasons upon which whatsoever belongs to the profession of a Christian is receivable For that which cannot be derived as for the evidence of it from those means by which wee stand convicted that Christianity stands upon true motives cannot be receivable as any part of it And therefore however the generality of this reason may obscure the evidence of it to them that take not the pains to consider it as it deserves yet the truth of it supposes no more than all use of reason supposes that all knowledg that is to be had proceeds upon something presupposed to be known In which case it would be very childish to consider that the Church is more ancient in time than the Scriptures at least than some part of them as the Writings of the Apostles for example in some sort then all Scriptures if wee understand the people of God and the Church to be the same thing For to passe by sor the present the Fathers before the Law as the people of Israel were Gods people by the Covenant of the Law before they received the Law written in the five Books of Moses So was the authority of Moses imployed by God to mediate that Covenant both good and sufficient before they by accepting the Law became Gods people And upon this authority alone and not upon any authority founded upon their being Gods people free and possessed of the Land of Promise to be ruled by themselves and their own Governors dependeth the credit of Moses and the Prophets Writings In like manner the being of the Church whether a Society and Corporation or not supposing the profession of Christianity and that the receiving of the Gospel which is the Covenant of Grace and that the authority of our Lord and his Apostles as sent by God to establish it Manifest it is that the credit of their Writings depends on nothing else but is supposed to the being of the Church whatsoever it is Which if it be so no lesse manifest it must be that nothing is receivable for truth in Christianity that cannot be evidenced to proceed from that authority that is more antient than the being of the Church as a truth declared by some act of that authority And therefore it would be childish to allege priority of time for the Church if perhaps
of the Languages and of Historical truth to the text of the Scripture And many things more may be cleared by applying the light of reason void of partiality and prejudice to draw the truth so cleared into consequence No part of all this can be said to be held upon any decree of the Church Because no part of the evidence supposes the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation the constitution whereof inableth some persons to oblige the whole Because there are maters in question concerning our common Christianity and the sense of the Scriptures upon which the great mischief of diviâ—â—on is fallen out in the Church it is thought a plausible plea to say that the decree of the present Church supposing the foundation of the Church in that nature and the power given to every part in behalf of the whole of which no evidence can be made not supposing all that for truth which I have said obligeth all Christians to believe as much as the Scriptures supposing them to be the Word of God can do Which they that affirm do not consider that it must first be evident to all that are to be obliged Both that the Church is so founded and whoâ—e Act it is and how that Act must be done which must oblige it Seeing then that the Scriptures are admitted on all sides to be the Word of God let us see whether it be as evident as the Scriptures that the act of the Pope or of a General Council or both oblige the Church to believe the truth of that which they decree as much as the Scriptures I know there are texts of Scripture alleged First concerning the Apostles and Disciples Mat. X. 14 15 40. Luke IX 5. X. 10 11 16. where those that refuse them are in worse estate than Sodom and Gomorrha And Hee that heareth you heareth mee Hee that neglecteth you neglecteth mee Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Go make all Nations Disciples teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you and behold I am with you to the worlds end 1 Thess II. 13. Yee received the Gospel of us not as the word of man but as it is indeed the word of God Then concerning S. Peter as predecessor of all Popes Mat. XVI 18 19. Vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven Luke XXII 32. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted strengthen thy brethren John XXI 15 16 17. Simon son of Jonas lovest thou mee Feed my lambs feed my sheep Again concerning the Church and Councils Mat. XVIII 17-20 If hee heare them not tell the Church If hee hear not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican Verily I say unto you whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Again I say unto you If two of you agree on earth upon any thing to ask it it shall be done them from my Father in heaven For where two or three are assembled in my name there am I in the midst of them John XVI 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us 1 Tim. III. 15. That thou mayest know now it behoveth to converse in the house of God which is the Churchof God the pillar and establishment of the truth You have further the exhortations of the Apostles 1 Thess V. 12 13. Now I beseech you brethren to know them which labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you And esteem them more than abundantly in love for their works sake Heb. XIII 7 17. Bee obedient and give way to your Rulers for they watch for your souls as those that must give account That they may do it joyfully and not groaning Which is not for your profit And afore Rememeer your Rulers which have spoken to you the Word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their Faith Those that spoke unto them the Word of God are the Apostles or their companions and deputies whom hee commandeth them to obey no otherwise than those who presently watched over them after their death In the Old Testament likewise Deut. XVII 5-12 Hee that obeyeth not the determination of the Court that was to sit before the Ark is adjudged to death Therefore Hag. II. 12. Thus saith the Lord the God of Hosts Ask the Priests concerning the Law Mal. II. 7. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge and the Law shall they require at his mouth For hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts The answers of the Priests resolved into the decrees of the said Court therefore they are unquestionable And this Power established by the Law our Lord acknowledging the Law allowes Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chair whatsoever therefore they command you that do But according to their works do not This is that which is alleged out of the Scriptures for that Infallibility which is challenged for the Church If I have left any thing behinde it will prove as ineffectual as the rest In all which there are so many considerations appear why the sense of them should be limited on this side or extended beyond the body of the Church that it is evident they cannot serve for evidence to ground the Infallibility of it For is it not evident that the neglect of the Apostles in questioning their doctrine redounds upon our Lord who by sending them stamps on them the marks of his Fathers authority which hee is trusted with Not so the Church For who can say that God gives any testimony to the lie which it telleth seeing Christianity is supposed the Infallibility thereof remaining questionable Is it not evident that God is with his Chu ch not as a Corporation but as the collection of many good Christians Supposing that those who have power to teach the Church by the constitution thereof teach lies and yet all are not carried away with their doctrine but believe Gods truth so farre as the necessity of their salvation requires If there were any contradiction in this supposition how could it be maintained in the Church of Rome that so it shall be when Antichrist comes as many do maintain Besides is it as evident as Christianity or the Scriptures that this promise is not conditional and to have effect supposing both the teaching and the following of that which our Lord lud taught and nothing else Surely if those that refuse the Gospel be in a worse state than those of Sodom and Gomorrha it followeth not yet that all that refuse to hear the Church without the Gospel are so For the truth of the Gospel
because all agreed that they transgressed therefore they were excluded the Church But Vincentius besides this advanceth another mark to discern what belongs to the Rule that is what the ground and scope of our Creed requires For it might be said that perhaps something may come in question whether consistent with the Rule of Faith or not in which there hath passed no decree of the primitive Church because never questioned by that time Wherein therefore wee shall be to seek notwithstanding the decrees past by the Church upon ancient Heresies Which to meet with Vincentius saith further that whatsoever hath been unanimously taught in the Church by writing that is alwaies by all every where to that no contradiction is ever to be admitted in the Church Here the stile changes For whereas Irenaeus Tertullian and others of former time appeal onely to that which was visible in the practice of all Churches By the time of the Council at Ephesus the dare of Vincentius his book so much had been written upon all points of Faith and upon the Scriptures that hee presumeth evidence may be made of it all what may stand with that which the whole Church had taught what may not I know this proposition satisfieth not now because I know Vincentius proceedeth upon supposition that the Church was and ought to be alwaies one Body in which that which agreeth with the Faith might be taught that which agreeth not might not Which is the question now in dispute For upon other termes it had been madnesse in him to allege and maintain the Council of Ephesus condemning Nestorius as infringing the Rule of Faith upon this presumption because ten received Doctors of the Church had formerly delivered the contrary of his doctrine It is well enough known that there are many questions in which though there may be ten Fathers alleged on one side yet there may be more alleged on the other side And it were a piteous case if Vincentius or I could tell you no wiser a way for the ending of Controversies in Religion than by counting noses The presumption lies in this That the witnesles that depose being of such credit in the Church as the quality which they beare in it presupposeth it cannot reasonably be imagined that they could teach that for truth which is inconsistent with Christianity but they must be contradicted in it and their quality and degree in the Church questioned upon it And that the Church having been alwaies one and the same Body from Christ whosoever should undertake to teach that for the Christian Faith which from the beginning had been counted false hee would have been questioned for contradicting that profession which qualified him for that rank which hee held in the Church It is the case of Nestorius who venting his Heresie in the Church gave the people occasion to check at it and the Council of Ephesus to condemn it Now Vincentius his discourse presupposeth that the doctrine of those ten whom hee allegeth had not been contradicted A thing which must needs be presupposed by him that supposed the Great Council of Nicaea had decreed no more than that which had alwaies been taught in the Church For it is plain that without questioning the Faith setled at Nicaea there is no room for the opinion of Nestorius But otherwise should ten of that quality which hee allegeth be so considerably contradicted that it must be presumed their doctrine was suffered to passe not as not taken notice of but as not contradicting the common profession of Christians it will appear a presumption that neither part is of the substance of Faith but both allowed to be taught in the Church And if it appear further that the fewer in number and the lesse in rank and quality in the Church hold that which dependeth more necessarily upon the Rule of Faith which containeth the substance of the Scriptures it will be no way prejudicial to the Unity and authority of the Church as a Corporation founded by God that a private man as I am should conclude it for truth against the greater authority in maters depending upon the foundation of the Church If it be said that this evidence supposeth the necessity of Baptisme to the making of a Christian Which not onely the Leviathaâ— is farr from granting who professeth himself bound to renounce Christ at the command of his Soveraign But the Socinians also and some of our Sectaries hold indifferent to salvation whether baptized or not I answer That the question here is not what belongs or belongs not to the Rule of Faith and Christian conversation necessary to the salvation of all Christians but whether there be any such Rule or not That the original and universal custome of Carechizing all Christians evidenceth such a Rule by the consent of all Christians as you have seen it evidenced by the frequent mention thereof in Scriptures That therefore it stands recommended to us by the same means and upon the same grounds for which wee receive the holy Scriptures And that though when the World was come into the Church and many more were baptized infants then afore it cannot be said that this order of Catechizing was so substantially performed as afore Yet the mater and theme of it remaining in the Tradition of the Creed and the sense of it in the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of the Church against Hereticks it remains still visible what belongs to it what not as I shall make appear in that which is questioned within the subject of this book Onely this is the place where I am to allege against the Leviathan why the profession of Christianity is necessary to the salvation of all Christians Whereupon it will follow without further proof that it is necessary to salvation to believe more than that Jesus is the Christ To wit whatsoever this Rule of Christianity containeth the profession whereof is requisite to Christianity Heare our Lord Mat. X. 32 33. Luke XII 8 9. Whosoever shall renounce mee before men him will I renounce before my Father which is in heaven And whosoever shall acknowledge mee before men him will I acknowledge before my Father which is in heaven And S. Paul Rom. X. 9 10. If thou confesse with thy mouth that Jesus is the Lard and believe with thy heaâ—t that God raised him from the dead that shalt be saved For with the heart a man believes to righteousnesse and with the mouth hee professeth to salvation And a Tim. II. 12. If wee deny him hee will deny us Our Lords Commission to his Apostles is Mat. XXVIII 19. Go make disciples all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Who are then Christs Disciples That wee may know what the Apostles are to make them whom they make Christs Disciples Yâ—e are my Disciples saith our Lord if yee do whatsoever I command you And John XV. 8. Herein is my Father glorified that yee heart 〈◊〉 fruit
rather here to prevent the objection that may be made that I ground my selfe upon the authority of men when I allege the testimonies of Church Writers For those that may abuse themselves with such a fond imagination as this are to consider that I claime as yet no other credit not onely for Tertullian who after hee turned Montanist was not of the Church but for the Fathers of the Church but that which common sense allowes men of common sense in witnessing maters of historical truth To wit that they who published writings that are come to posterity would not have alleged things for true which every man might see to be false in point of fact Because by so doing common sense must needs tell them that they must of necessity utterly discredit the cause which they meant to promote As in the case in hand If wee say that Tertullian being a Montanist alleged against the Church things so notoriously false that all the world might see and know them to be false wee refuse him the credit of a man in his right senses For what were hee but a mad man that would tell the Church that such or such Customes you know are practised among Christians knowing that they were not practised by the Catholick Church though they might be among the Montanists Therefore though I put a great deal of difference between the authority of Tertullian and S. Basil in regulating the Church yet in witneshng mater of fact I can ascribe no more to S. Basils testimony in his book de Sp. S. cap. XXVII than I do to this of Tertullian His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of things decreed and preached that are kept in the Church some wee have from written doctrine some wee have received as delivered in secret down to us from the Tradition of the Apostles both of the same force to godlinesse And this will no man contradict that hath but a little experience in the rules of the Church For if wee go about to refuse unwritten customes as of no great effect wee shall unawares wound the Gospel in the dangerous part or rather turn the Faith preached into a bare name As first to mention the first and commonest Who taught us by writing to mark with the figure of the Crosse those that have hoped in the name of our Lord Christ Jesus What Scripture taught us to turn to the East when wee pray Which of the Saints left us by writing the words of invocation upon discovering the bread of Thanksgiving and the cup of Blessing For wee are not content with those which the Apostle or the Gospel mentions but promote and inferre others as of great force toward the Sacrament which wee have received by unwritten doctrine Wee also blesse the water of Baptisme and the oile of anointing and besides the man himself that is baptized from what Scripture and not from silent and secret Tradition And indeed what written word taught the very anointing of oile And that a man is drenched thrice whence comes it And other things about Baptisme renouncing Satan and his Angels from what Scripture come they And not from this unpublished and secret doctrine I will not here dispute the saying of S. Basil that these orders are of the same force toward Christian piety as the Scriptures And that Christianity would be but a bare name were it not for these unwritten customes how the truth of it holds Nay it were easie to instance against him as well as against Tertullian that among the particulars which they name there are those which never were in force through the whole Church but onely in some parts of it My present purpose demands onely this that Christians had rules which they observed for Lawes in the exercise of their communion And therefore by the intent of those who inforced those rules do constitute a Society or Corporation by the name of the Church Which Corporation Tertullian whether a Montanist or not when hee writ the book which I quote claimeth to belong to in reckoning himself among those that observed the Rules of the Catholick Church If wee suppose the Church to be one Body consisting of all Churches which are all of them several Bodies it will be not onely reasonable but absolutely necessary by consequence to grant that some orders there must be which shall have the force of the whole others onely in some parts of it And though S. Basil or Tertullian mistake local customes for general yet had there not alwaies been a Body capable of being tied by general customes there had been no room for this mistake No prejudice shall hinder mee to name here the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles Not as if I meant to maintain that the writings so called were indeed penned by them But because they contain such limitations of customes delivered the Church by the Apostles as were received and in use at such times and in such parts of the Church where those who penned those writings writ For though I should grant that those limitations are not agreeable to that which was brought in by the Apostles no man would be so ridiculous as to demand that there were never any orders or customes delivered the Church by the Apostles which succeeding times did limit otherwise The book of Canons which was acknowledged by the representatives of the whole Church in the Council of Chalcedon if it be survayed shall be found to contain onely particular limitations of general orders held by the Church before those Canons were made by the several Councils either the same with those in the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles or differing onely according to several times and places For wee have yet extant a book of Canons made out of the Africane Councils containing the like limitations of the same customes and orders which though not the same yet served to preserve the Churches of Africk in unity with the rest of the Church This Code wee finde added to the former by Dionysius Exâ—guus in his translation of the Canons together with the Canons of the Council at Sardica And Cassiodore who lived the same time with Dionysius affirmes that this collection was in use in the Church of Rome at that time Divin lect cap. XXIII But there is extant a later Collection of Canons under the title of the Church of Rome consisting of the same Canons together with some of the Rescripts of Popes which were come into use and authority in the Western Church at such time as the said Collection was made Of the same Canons consisteth another Greek collection printed by du Tillet and commented by Balsamon which addeth hereunto the Canons of the sixth and seventh Synod in use in the Greek Church but not acknowledged by the Latine Where instead thereof the collections of Martinus Braccarensis and Isidorus Mercator of Burchardns Bishop of Wormes and Ives of Chartres where last of all the collection of Gratiane the Dominican Monk was in
may have an issue which I pretend requires the Tradition of the Church and that the communion and Corporation of the Church as the onely meanes to maintain and propagate Tradition in it This our Independent Congregations cannot allow but must stand upon the other plea of those Hereticks that it came in beside if not against Gods appointment which the Donatists questioned not And therefore you shall finde S. Austine in the place aforenamed allege against them the Scriptures fore-telling the calling of all Nations which hee supposeth fulfilled in the Catholick Church then visible and therefore supposeth the communion to be ordained by God wherein the visibility thereof consisteth Otherwise it had been strange to tell the Donatists that they communicating with the Catholick Bishop of Rome communicated with all the Church that acknowledged him but the Donatists acknowledging the Donatist Bishop whom they had set up at Rome were therefore disowned by all the Church beside I do not deny that those of the Reformation are to give account of those things which the Donatists are charged with Nor do I imagine that their account cannot be sufficient because that of the Donatists was not But I say that the trial must be by the Scriptures which both parts acknowledge And I say further that the rest of the Reformation may and ought to admit the Unity of the Church in visible communion as the Donatists did because otherwise they cannot pretend that others are bound to bâ— what they are But our Independent Congregations cannot because if all were as they there could be no one Church obliged to that communion which makes it visible Now I must here caution that I intend not here to inferre that these Rulers succeeded the Apostles by a title of Divine Right as if it were Gods Law that this succession should alwaies continue For I demand for the present upon the exception of those of the Reformation that succession of Faith and doctrine is of more consequence than succession of persons And therefore that there can be no Law of God whereby the right which men hold by personal succession can or ought to hinder the Reformation of Faith and doctrine of Christianity if it may appear that the succession of persons hath not been effectual to preserve the succession of Faith That which I demand from the premises is this That no man in his right senses can imagine that all Christendome should agree in acknowledging those for lawfull Rulers of the Church in the times next the Apostles that had usurped their places contrary to the will of the Apostles and those Disciples which concurred to the work of the Apostles and those who derived their authority from either of both during the time of the Scriptures which I spoke of afore For those of the Reformation that make this exception by making it do acknowledge that there was such a visible succession of Pastors the correspondence of whom as here I argue maintained the unity of a visible Corporation in the Catholick Church And how many records of historical truth undeniable of all that would not be thought to renounce their common sense do testifie unto us visible acts of the Apostles giving power to them whom they left behinde them as those whom they gave it to have transmitted the like power to their successors But when it once appeares that they were owned by the consent of all Christians communicating with them in that quality which they held in their own Churches it can no more be imagined that they could attain those qualities by deceit or violence contrary to the will of their predecessors than it can be imagined that the common Christianity which wee all acknowledge could prevail over all by imposing upon their belief such motives to believe as never were seen because never done And therefore whatsoever change may have succeeded in those qualities from that which the Apostles instituted from the beginning or by abuse of the same in the Faith which they were trusted to propagate without adding or taking away which changes may be the subject of Reformation in the Church and the belief of it yet that this point is not of that nature That all lawfull authority in the Church is derived from that which was in the Apostles propagated by some visible act of theirs I will presume upon as proved by the premises CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given the Apostles and exercised by Excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatemeut of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks IN the last place the right of Excommunication consists in the power of remitting and retaining sins given by our Lord to his Church with the Keyes of it First to S. Peter alone our Lord saith Mat. XVI 19. I will give thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed there But afterwards to the Body of his Disciples Mat. XVIII 17 18. If hee heare thee not tell the Church If he hear not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane Verily I say unto you Whatsoever yet binde as afore And to the XII breathing upon them John XX. 22 23. Receive yee the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever yee remit they are remitted and whose sins soever yee retaine they are retained By virtue of this Commission S. Peter saith to Simon Magus discovered a counterfeit Christian Acts VIII 20-24 Thy money perish with thee because thou hast thought to purchase the gift of God with money Thou hast neither part nor lot in this Word for thy heart is not right before God Repent thorefore of this thy malice and pray God that if possible this device of thine heart may be forgiven thee For I see thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of unrighteousnesse And Simon answering said Pray you to the Lord for mee that nothing come upon mee of that which you have said Where having excluded him from the benefit of Christianity what hee is to expect hee leaves to the trial of future time But most manifestly S. Paul 1 Cor. V. commandeth them to deliver the incestuous person to Satan adding directions and reasons why they are to abstaine from the conversation of such Christians And pursueth this discourse with a charge of ending the sutes of their Christians within the Church 1 Cor. VI. which either signifies nothing or inforces the power of Excommunication to oblige the parties to stand to the sentence But the case of the incestuous person is made still more manifest by the reason of the sentence in joyned upon his repentance and the sorrow testified by the Church 2 Cor. II. 4-11 VII 8-11 In the Epistle to the Ebrewes VI. 4-8 X. 26-29 the Apostle declaring that they
But hee that complaineth of that will be bound to advance some other meaning of those texts which may be free from contradiction both to the Rule of Faith and to Historical truth which common sense justifieth And yet admit no mention of publick Penance in the Church no intent to speak of it in all the Scriptures there alleged Which perhaps will be too hard to do Further I labor not I will suppose no man so wilfull as to dispute the right of excluding from the Communion of the Church granting a power of limiting the conditions upon which it is to be restored to them who forfeited it And this is visible It was but a mater of LXX years after the decease of S. John according to Eusebius his Chronicle that Montamis appeared to demand that Adulterers might not be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon Penance That those that had married the second time might not communicate That the rule of Fasting might be stricter than was in use That it might not be lawfull to fly from persecution for the Faith It is manifest that these were his pretenses by Tertullian that maintaines them being seduced with the opinion of inspirations and revelations granted him and his partizans to that purpose These pretenses were afterwards in part revived at Rome by Novatianus to get himself the Bishoprick there by excluding from Penance and reconciliation those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius It appeareth also that those men alleged for themselves the very passages of the Apostles which I allege to my intent Neither can it appear that ever any son of the Church did contradict them by saying that the Apostles meant nothing of Penance as they imagined And now let all men judge whether the Church have reason to hold this evidence of Penance and by consequence of its own being a Church Was Epiphanius and all that writ against the Novatians troubled to no purpose at the VI of the Ebrews when those Schismaticks alleging it for themselves might have been silenced by denying that it concerned Penance Why did not the Church allege that the sin unto death 1 John V. 17. is no such thing as Apostasy from Christianity when the Novatians alleged it to prove that Apostates were not to be reconciled to the Church How came it to passe that there was so much doubt made in the Church of Rome of admitting the Epistle to the Ebrews for Canonical Scripture witnesse S. Jerome Epist ad Dardanum as thinking that it did absolutely contradict the re-admitting of Apostates which had been practised in that Church before Montanus Tertullian of all men was troubled without cause that the incestuous person whom hee supposes to be excommunicated at Corinth by S. Pauls Order 1 Cor. V. should be re-admitted by his Indulgence 1 Cor. VII De Pudicitiâ cap. XIII XIV XV. because hee saw this was a peremptory exception against Montanus that a crime equal to Adultery should by S. Paul be admitted to Penance How easie a thing it had been for him to say that there is nothing of Penance nothing of Excommunication which Penance presupposes and therefore inferres in delivering to Satan the incestuous person in commanding them not so much as to eat with those that are called brethren that is Christians but are indeed such as the incestuous But hee being some fourteen hundred years nearer the beginning of Christianity than wee and being satisfied by his five senses of those things which new Heresies and Schismes oblige us to argue by consequences found that his Patriarch Montanus could not answer so And therefore thinking that the Church could not answer their arguments forces an answer to this by saying it was not the same man that is excommunicated by the Apostles Order 1 Cor. V. and restored by his Indulgence 2 Cor. VII Because hee saw the reconciling of a sinner to the Church by Penance as lively described and signified by S. Pauls Indulgence there as by any record of the Church at such time as it was most in use And can there remain any doubt of this Excommunication because the Church cannot now deliver to Satan for destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Surely all the writings of the Apostles do bear witnesse that the miraculous graces of the Holy Ghost which they had then but all Christians see the Church hath not now served not onely to witnesse the truth of Christianity but the authority of the Apostles in behalf of it This authority having taken effect by those Ordinances which the Church hath received at their hands It is no longer requisite that God should bear witnesse to his own Ordinances by such miraculous effects seeing hee doth no longer bear witnesse to the truth of Christianity by the like Hee that believes that whosoever is not in the Church is in the power of Satan needs no reason why hee is delivered to Satan that is put out of the Church Hee that believes it not is not to be perswaded that there is a power of Excommunication granted the Church But that the Christian saith which the Church preacheth is true for that without peradventure preached the Church At least till some body show us that this reason is insufficient hee must not demand that wee give an Article of our Creed and all the help to salvation which the communion of the Catholick Church pretendeth for such an objection as this Chuse now whether you will say as I say That under the Apostles difficulty was made of re-admitting some sorts of sins but never any peremptory order against it and so that Montanus and Novatianus were Schismaticks for seperating from the Church when the whole Church was agreed that there was a necessity of it or look about for a more reasonable sense to assoile the great difficulties of these passages Provided that you offer not violence to common sense and historical truth by imagining that so near the Apostles time there could be so much question about Penance they having neither meant nor ordained any thing about it To this argument all the most ancient records of the Church wheresoever mention is made of reconciling by Penance all the Penitential Canons of later ages will bear witnesse For who can undertake to answer or rather to obscure the evidence made in the place aforenamed that some sins were refused Penance and reconcilement in the first ages of the Church When wee have a whole book of Tertullian contending with Montannus to impose a Law upon it of re-admitting no Adulterers When wee know a whole sect of Novatians that left the Church that they might re-admit no Apostates As for the Penitential Canons of later ages it is manifest to any man that shall peruse and compare them with that which hath been said of the primitive times that they are nothing else but the abatement of that rigor of Discipline which during the primitive heat and zele of
unity of the Church which professed it Thus then writeth Irenaeus This preaching and this faith the Church having received as I said afore though dispersed all over the world carefully keepeth as if it inhabited one house And believeth these things alike as if it had one soule and one heart And harmoniously preacheth and teacheth and delivereth them as if it had but one mouth For there be divers languages in the world but the Tradition signifies the same Nor do the Churches seated in the Germanies believe or deliver otherwise nor those in the Spaines nor among the Gaules nor in the East nor in Aegypt nor in Africk nor those that are seated in the middle parts of the world But as the Creature of God the Sun is one and the same in all the world so shineth the preaching of the truth every where inlightning all men that will come to the knowledge of the truth And neither will any of those that Rule in the Churches though powerfull in speaking say things diverse from these for the Disciple is not above his Master nor hee that is weak in speech abate of that which is delivered For to the same Faith neither hee that is able to say much of it addeth nor hee that is able to say little abateth of it Hee that acknowledges this to be Gods doing must of necessity acknowledge the means of it the concurrence of all Churches to the maintainance of unity in the same Faith by disowning those that pretended to break it not left to mans will but injoyned by Gods And Irenaeus his instance in the Church of Rome serves to good purpose to make out this evidence For all Churches that is as Irenaeus sayes Christians of all Churches having necessarily recourse to Rome for all occasions because it was the seat of the Empire might there inform themselves and their Churches of the perverse doctrines that might be on foot and of the consent of the Churches in refusing the same In the next place I will not forget the relation of Epiphanius concerning Marcion in the beginning of his Heresie because it is next in time and of great consequence Hee being put out of the Church by his Father Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and making sure to be admitted by the Church of Rome received this answer That they could not do it without his Fathers consent because the Faith is one and the Unity the same Compare herewith the proceeding of Synesius against Andronicus Ep. LVIII LXXIX though so much distant in time which in the first book de Synedriis Judaeorum pag. 304. is said to be of a high strain Hee saith that if any Church neglecting his Church of Ptolomais as a poor Church being the Church of a small City shall receive to communion those whom it had excommunicated hee shall be thereby guilty of dividing the Church which Christ will have to be one And tell mee how this proceeding differs from that which in Marcions case Epiphanius sayes was done at Rome so near the Apostles Certainly if one Church should receive into communion those whom another Church excommunicates there could remaine no unity in the whole Church because no distinction from those that are not of the Church When therefore it appears that the Church held it for a Rule from the beginning not to do so shall not this be evidence that the reason is that which was alleged to Marcion at Rome which Synesius alleges To wit the Unity of the Church For the same reason Montanus having as it seems by pretended revelations and inspirations such as at that time there can be no question but the Church was graced with brought the Churches of Phrygia to his intent but being rejected by the Churches of Asia went or sent to Rome to induce that Church to undertake and prescribe the same Rules to all that adheered unto it For why otherwise should hee labor for the consent of that Church before others but in hope that having induced it to receive his Rules the authority thereof might induce other Churches to do the like because they found it necessary for them to hold correspondence with the Church of Rome Now I beseech you were all Christians utterly out of their five senses to contend about the communion of the Church if there were no such thing in point of fact Were they all from the beginning possest with a frenzy that they were bound to maintain it by voiding all questions that might impeach it if there were no such obligation in point of right Is it not plain that the issue of such questions was this whether the Unity of the Church or the advantage of such Rules to the common cause of Christianity wayed most How is Tertullian otherwise counted a Montanist that is as I suppose a Schismatick Wee may believe Tertullian in a mater which all Christians at Rome then might know when hee tells us that Zephyrinus then Bishop of Rome was about to admit unto his communion the Churches of Asia and Phrygia that had acknowledged Montarus and his Prophets and Prophesies Contr. Prax. cap. I. Though Pope Soter afore Zephyrinus had writ against Montanus as well as Apollonius Bishop of Ephesus if wee believe Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XXVI When hee sayes that afterwards the contrary was resolved upon informations brought from Asia by Praxeas an Heretick That which appears that the Montanists were disclaimed wee must admit That which appears not upon what information it was done wee need not dispute Tertullian hereupon drawes after him a company which called themselves a Church at Carthage and subsisted there after Tertullian till they were reduced by S. Augustine as wee learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XCVII and S. Augustine de Haeresibus This makes Tertullian a Schismatick That rather than rest content with those Rules which the rest of the Church satisfied themselves with hee departed from the Unity of it Otherwise those blasphemies for which the followers of Montanus are counted Hereticks preferring their own revelations above and against those of the Apostles hee is not chargable with Proceed wee now to the businesse of keeping Easter and the debate about it between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia These resolutely adheering to the custome which in all appearance they had received from their founder S. John to keep the Passion when the Jewes kept it that is upon the fifteenth day of the Moon that was the next equinoctial and the Resurrection the third after that The Church of Rome and almost all Churches beside keeping thc Passion on the Friday the Resurrection on the Ladies day following The one aiming at winning the Jewes when it was first set on foot the other to protest against them as incorrigible It is well enough known how Victor intending to withdraw his Communion from the Churches of Asia was reduced to tolerate them by the perswasions of Irenaeus then Bishop of Lions Certainly had not the Communion of the
is Soveraign inact it By consequence must needs deny that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church whose office was onely to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State which therefore when it is Christian is called the Church of such a Kingdome Though hee acknowledge also that before the Empire was Christian the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scriptures the Church of such or such a City pag. 275 But denying that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey because they are lyable to other Powers of this world according to the States of which they are pag. 248. and before pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loosing very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins But so that supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not or to binde them that do and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes because they may be counterfeit And this Power as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church Mat. XVIII 16. when hee saith Tell the Church So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11 12 and 3 4 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the incestuous persons and other finners to be in the Congregation reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people but when S. Paul writ the Body of Christians in such or such a City pag. 275. In like maner the appointing of Persons either to officiate the Service of God or to wait upon the necessities of the Church hee also gives unto the Church that is then to the respective Bodies of Christians but now to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it But the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands as to the Apostles for their time so to the worlds end to their Successors For thus were Maâ—thias Paul and Barnabas made Apostles Act. I. 15 23. XIV 1 2 3. XIV 14. Thus the seven Deacons thus the Elders of Churches were constituted Acts VI. 3. XIV 23. the Congregation chusing the Apostles declaring the choice as in binding and loosing As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law For how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons that is not bound to be a Christian But that Tithes under the Law were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people having made God their Soveraign by their Covenant with him in which right Moses and Aaeron and the High Priests that succeeded him were but his Lieutenants so that when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings it held meerly by their sufferance this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church by determining Controversies of Faith and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture call it what you please as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians It had been a necessary consequence of this opinion that as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to decree so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church a Right to declare publish or pronounce the same as in Excommunicating and Ordaining hee doth For which hee hath found no ground no pretense in the Scriptures Besides whereas by the Act of the Apostles laying a burden upon believers Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors practising the holding of Councils which common sense would make ridiculous if they had no effect upon the Church hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves though not the Church It will be impossible for him to render a reason either why this power should cease or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian and all right in the Church is resolved into it I must not leave this point before I have taken notice of one presumption wherein both these Authors seem to agree For the Leviathan in several places pag. 285 286 282 205 206 322. taketh for granted that there is no Law in the world but the Law of Nature and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths And therefore that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil must indow it both with right and means to constrain men to obey it and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church in as much as all Christians even Soveraignes are members of it Which to avoid it is necessary to grant that the Church is nothing else but a Christian Commonwealth and the Clergy ministers of the Soveraign Power deriving all their authority from it pag. 209 249 296. In like maner the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum in defining Excommunication pag. 105. takes it for granted that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommunicate in regard of his reputation of freedom changed and abated by it Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power as is able by outward force to constrain obedience For otherwise the estate of no man that is protected in all right by the Civil Power could be changed or abated by it Accordingly in several places hee presumes that those who maintain the Power of the Church and the right of Excommunicating which is a prime part of it to stand by Gods Law are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world in Ordine ad spiritualia And hereupon follow the reasons whereby these Authors have disputed the one à priori that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes in as much as a Power not depending upon them may lawfully be used against them by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force The other à posteriori from the practice of all Christian States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes Who by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done or pretended to inforce by Excommunication have
of the Church can be founded upon the right thereof or derived from it Neither is it otherwise with the Prophetical Office The authority whereof as I have showed was of divine right under the Law as depending immediately upon the will of God that raised them up and gave them authority by those evidences which his own Law had made legal And this that hee might tye his people the more strongly by their ministery and by the evidence of his presence among them to observe his Law And yet in as much as all Christians must believe them fore-runners of Christ sent to give notice of his coming by such meanes as God that sent him thought fit so that hee by his Office is the chief Prophet to whom the Father reserved the full declaration of his will and pleasure concerning the alliance hee intended to hold with men of necessity their office was to expire in him neither can it remaine in the Church further than hee by a new act may appear to have appointed I do not here make any doubt that S. Paul argued very well when hee said 1 Cor. IX 13 14. Know yee not that they which work holy things eat of the holy That they who wait upon the Altar take part with the Altar So also hath God appointed them that bring newes of the Gospel to live of the Gospel But hee that will understand this argument must make up the comparison by completing the correspondence between the bringing of souls to Christ by preaching the Gospel and the sacrificing of living creatures to God by executing the Law This correspondence the Apostle himself hath delared to our hands Rom. XV. 15 16. Because of the grace given mee of God saith hee that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles exercising the sacred function of preaching the Gospel of God that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost And Phil. II. 17. Nay though I be poured forth upon the sacrifice and ministery of your Faith I rejoyce and that joyntly with you all Where it appeareth that by submitting to the Gospel men become a sacrifice to God in as much as they dye to the world and that they who bring them to Christianity are the Priests that offer this sacrifice And by this Priesthood it is that the Apostle challengeth a right of living upon preaching the Gospel as the Priests lived by attending upon the sacrifices of the Law Which if it be true then is the Apostles office that Priesthood under the Gospel which was to remaine by the correspondence thereof with the Law and thereforâ— cannot derive any Title from the Levitical Priesthood which it maketh void As for the Office of Prophets under the Gospel it is plain by S. Pauls Epistles that it pleased God among other miraculous Graces of the Holy Ghost whereby hee evidenced his presence in the Church to stirre up Prophets in those Primitive Churches by whom besides they might be instructed in the more solid understanding of their Christianity as may appear in particular by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV Which being supposed can any man imagine that the Office of those Prophets and the authority which it importeth can be derived from the Prophets under the Law whose Office expired in Christ His act it must be to give authority to Prophets under the Gospel and since wee have showed that the chief authority which hee left in the Church was left with his Apostles it followeth by consequence which by other Scriptures in another place I have showed to have been true that the Apostles by their Office were the chief Prophets of the Church Though as for the continuance of the gift of Prophesie under the Gospel there is no promise recorded as under the Law there is So neither any precept requiring obedience to their Office as then I have showed there was In fine God by Christ designed to raise up children to Abraham which are the new Israel according to the Spirit Hee hath given the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord that authority over them which may answer the power of the Patriarchs and Elders of his ancient people under Moses Hee hath incorporated into their Office under the Gospel the authority both of Priests and Prophets under the Law which both were to cease with the Law Therefore wee are not to derive any Poweâ— of the Church from the rights of the Priesthood under the Law not to argue that the Church hath no right to that Power which the Priesthood as then was not seised of But whatsoever power was in the Prinees of Tribes and their inferiors in the Elders and Judges of Israel for the civil Government of that people under Moses the same wee must inferre to have been in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and by consequence in them to whom they may appeare to have committed any part of it for the government of the Church under our Lord Christ Saving the difference which the condition whereupon either people are gathered into one Society importeth Which is in them the possession of the Land of Promise upon the observation of the Law in us the Kingdome of heaven upon the Faith of Christ And therefore in them inferreth temporal Power in disposing of causes and things of this world in these onely the Power of directing in spiritual maters wherein the Church by the Covenant of Grace doth communicate This opinion may seem to some man not to agree with the doctrine of the ancientest Fathers who do many times argue what order ought to be held in the Church from that which the Law provided for the Levitical Priesthood As Clemens Ep. ad Corinthios from the order which the Law had prescribed for the Sacrifices prescribed by it argueth that the like ought to be kept in the Church pag. 53. And S. Cyprian that as Eleazar was consecrated High Priest by Moses before the Congregation of the People so ought Ordinations to be celebrated before the Assembly of the Church Which kinde of argument seems to have no force unlesse wee derive the Offices of the Church from the Levitical Priesthood Together with abundance of passages to the same purpose whereof it shall be enough to have produced these for an example But this kinde of argument is easily stopped by one instance For it is manifest that the like argument of instruction or exhortation to those that claime by and under the Apostles may be drawn from divers passages of the ancient Scriptures wherein the Prophets of the Law are exhorted to do or reproved for neglecting their Office And yet no man can go about to derive the right of their authority from the Prophets Office by the Law of Moses And then it is easily answered that nothing hinders the same reason that appeares in the Ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood to be of evident consequence in the ordering of Gods Church Not because the order of the Church depends upon
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
easily finde that people were not governed from the beginning by written Lawes but reasonable and lawfull consent in some person or quality of persons whether of Gods designing or mans chusing to govern in chief was a first a Law sufficient to constitute any Commonwealth as being sufficient to produce all other Lawes which dissatisfaction should make requisite for determining cōmon differences either in writing or by silent custome Thus was the Commonwealth of Israel constituted under Moses so soon as that People had received God for their King and referred themselves to Moses for the man by whom they should understand his will and pleasure Neverthelesse because the wisedom of God easily foresaw how lightly those who presently received him for their King would be moved to fall away from him to other Gods that which was as easie for his wisedom to do hee gave them presently such Lawes in writing both for the Ceremonies wherewith hee would be worshipped as held the most particular difference from those which the Nations worshipped their Gods with and for their civil conversation as might best distinguish them from all other Nations that were fallen away to the worship of Idols And all this besides the secret intent of scretelling and figuring the Gospel in and by the same This was the intent of the Decalogue first then of those Lawes which Moses received in the Mount to be delivered to the people Exod. XXII XXIII XXIV and lastly of the ref which Moses received in the Tabernacle from Gods mouth speaking with him as God faith face to face When God the Father had sent our Lord Christ to publicsh his Gospel and to declare the intent of founding his Church upon it when our Lord Christ had declared his intent of leaving the world and the prosecution of his Gospel and gathering of his Church to his Apostles and Disciples then was the Society of the Church founded in as full force of authority as ever can have been in it since Though not yet actually a Church because the materials of it are not men but Christians that is such as by receiving Christianity should come into the communion of it Besides God intending one communion of all that should become Christians out of all Nations And therefore pretending to maintains the State of this World and all the Commonwealths in which the Church standeth on the same termes which it findeth dischargeth the Church of all that power to force men to obedience by harm of this world by which all States maintaine themselves Therefore the Church can pretend no more than to communicate in some certain particulars for which the Society thereof is erected and in the communion whereof it consisteth Suppose wee then the Law of Moses to be ceased as to the outward force of governing the People to whom once it was Law though not as to the inward intent of introducing the Gospel to which it was the Preface Suppose wee the Society of the Church to be ordained in the communion of those things which Christianity introduceth I say those Rules without which the Unity of the Church cannot be maintained whatfoever they be called have no lesse the force of Lawes than any that Secular States either inact or inforce Because as hee that once hath undertaken to take God for his God under a promise of being a free Israelite cannot so long as that prosession stands make question of undergoing the rest of Moses Laws howsoever troublesome they seem So hee that once hath imbraced the communion of the Church in hope of life everlasting is by the fame reason obliged to observe such Rules according to which the communion of the Church is in force and use But the communion of the Church not consisting in anything of this world onely in the Offices of Gods service for invisible communion in the faith and love of Christ and all for Christs take as Christianity requires is presupposed to the visible communion of the Church no reason can require that they should be many at least at the beginning Our Lord Christ having preached and declared unto his Disciples that Prosession of Christianity into which hee appointeth all Chrissians to be Baptized may well be said to have ordained the Sacrament of Baptisme for a Law to all Christians distinguishing the Ceremony by which the Prosession of Christianity is solemnized from the Prosession it self of Christianity which hee that comes to be baptized must have taken upon him for a Law afore As little question there can be that our Lord Christ at his last Supper instituted not his last Supper for what sense can there be in saying that our Lord at his last Supper instituted his last Supper but the Sacrament of his last Supper which is the Sacrament of the Eucharist for a perpetual Law to the Church Here then wee have for Lawes to the Church First the Rule of Faith containing the prosession upon supposition whereof the Corporation of the Church is founded Secondly the Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Eucharist Thirdly other offices of common Prayers and Praises of God together with the Hearing of his Word common to the Church with the Synagogue which God is to be served with And therefore thus farre I have proved that there is a Society of one Catholick Church founded by God upon the precept or the privilege of communicating in the service of God by there offices of Christianity equally charged upon all Christians And consisting in the obligation of maintaining unity in serving God by the said Offices Supposing then a visible authority settled in the persons of our Lords Apostles and Disciples in behalf of the community of Christians Supposing this community efected into a Society visible Body or Corporation of the Church whatsoever can become questionable not concerning mine and thine which Civil Government pretendeth to decide but concerning communion in those Offices which God is to be served with by Christians is virtually and potentially already decided by the right of doing such acts as being done oblige the Church for whom they are done Which therefore are the Laws of the Church Wee see that the intent and meaning of Christianity is many times quessionable in maters of that weight or taken to be of that weight that Christians are not to communicate with those who pretending to be Chistians do believe otherwise Here wee have none but the Apostles themselves to have recourse to None but they have convinced Christendom to believe that their word is Gods word For though Moses and the Prophets and our Lord Christ all spake by the same Spirit in as much as they all intended a secret which was not to be published till the Apostles preached the recourse wee have to them is with intent to argue and discover by their writings the truth of that which may become questionable in the preaching of the Apostles What then may appear to be deter-mined by the act of the Apostles as the writings of the
manisest that by the leter of the Law Deut. XIV 23. XVIII 4. Num. XVIII 12. of all fruits of the earth onelyCome and Oile and Wine are Tithable Of living creatures the Tith goes not to the Levites who payed the Priesthood the Tenth of their Tithes but to the Altar that is they are to be sacrificed to God So that by this means the Priests and Levites themselves paid this Tith as well as other Israelites and that no more to the interest and advantage of the Priesthood than the Paschal Lambs which they also sacrificed for Tithe cattel went to the owners as the Paschal Lambs did the Law having provided onely that they should be holy to the Lord Levis XXVII 32. that is sacrificed to God their bloud sprinkled upon the Altar and their flesh eaten in Jerusalem Which Law providing also that this Tith he onely of the Herd or of the flock that is of Bullock Sheep or Goat that passeth under the rod they that will derive the Churches claime of Tithes from the Levitical Law must by consequence tye themselves to these Terms Which would be not to abridge the claime but to destroy it For though many kindes besides these were Tithable among the Jewes by virtue of the Constitutions of the Synagogue yet that would not advantage the Church which forsaking the Synagogue for refusing Christianity cannot avail it self of the authority of it And truly hee that would insist that the Law is in force for the payment of Tithes to the Church will never be able to give a reason why it should not be in force for observing the Sabbath that is the Saturday for being circumcised and keeping all the Festivals and Sacrifices and Purifications of the Ceremonial Law and much more the Civil Law of that people as much contrary to the Civil Law of Christian people as to Christianity seeing that whatsoever is contained in that Law which is made void by Christianity must be understood to be void till it appear to be contained and imported in that Act which introduceth and establisheth Christianity in stead of the Law Indeed I must not say that the Levitical Law is the onely evidence that is alleged for the right of Tithes in the Church For every man knowes that Abrahams paying Tithes to Metchiseck the Priest of the most high God Gen. XIV 20. and Jacobs paying Tithes or vowing to pay them Gen. XXVIII 22. are alleged as indeed they ought to be alleged to show that paying of Tithes was in force under the Law of Nature that is in the time of the Patriarchs before the Ceremonial Law In which regard God faith that Tithes are his Levis XXVII 30 to wit by a Law introduced afore And the consequence hereof seems to be more effectual to the Church than that which is drawn from the Levitical Law in that consideration which the Fathers of the Church do presse with advantage enough against the Jewes that the Patriarchs were the fore-runners of Christians and that Christianity is more ancient than Judaisme in regard that the same service of God in spirit and truth by the inward obedience of the heart was in being in the lives of the Patriarchs as the Gospel requires before the scrupulous and precise and supperssitious observation of bloudy sacrifices and smoke of fat and incense and troublesom purifications of the outward man and the rest of Moses positive Law was required For if the Law of Nature and the conversation of the Patriarchs under it is indeed the pattern of Christianity and of the life of Christians under the Gospel expressed by deed before wee finde it indented for by Covenant Then certainly that which ought to be out-done by the Church is not abrogated by Christianity But this argument being made and allowed to be of force hee that therefore should say that the Church claimeth this right by virtue of that Law whereby it was in force under the Patriarchs would be presently lyable to peremptory instances of the difference of clean and unclean creatures Gen. Vll. 2. Of raising up feed to a brother deceased Gen. XXXVIII II. Of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and others which though then in force under the Gospel hold not Wherefore it is not to be said that the Law of that time is the act whereby the Church claimes but a ground whereupon the act whereby the Church claimes was done In like maner hee that should affirm this right due to the Church by virtue of the Levitical Law would meet with these exceptions peremptory as I suppose that have been advanced But when it hath been said and made good that the Levitical Law supposing the Gospel ordained by God to succeed it yields a sufficient ground to argue that a provision answerable thereunto was to be established in the Church as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church requireth I say this being premised there remaines nothing in question but how the establishing of it may be derived from the act of them that had the settling of the Church in their hands Considering then that provision is made by the Law onely for the maintenance of Gods Ceremonial service confined to Jerusalem for a powerfull evidence that the intent of that Covenant expressed no more than the Land of Promise that the promise of bringing the Gentiles to Christianity and the real destruction of the Law with the Place of this service inferrs the service of God in all places in spirit and truth to succeed it under the Gospel and by it that no order for all Nations that should be converted to resort to this service can be maintained without a Society or Corporation of the Church visibly telling them whither to resort for that purpose Upon these premiâ—es it will be of necessary consequence that the like provision for the maintenance of that service of God which the Church professeth be made to that which had been made for the service of God at Jerusalem during the time of the Synagogue Now the maintenance of Gods service in the Church with the maintenance of the Church subsisting for no other end than that service consists in the maintenance of those persons that are to attend on Gods service Of which persons there are two sorts The first is of those that attend either upon the Government of the Church or else upon the minisâ—ring of those Offices which God is served with by his Church unto the Assemblies of his people The second sort is of those that to preserve this temporal life being obliged to attend upon the imployment of it cannot spare themselves and their time to attend on Gods service It was therefore necessary that Christian people should contribute the first-fruits of their goods in Tithes and oblations to the Church by which those that attended upon the publick government of it as well as upon ministring the Offices of Christianity should both maintain themselves and be trusted to maintain the
during that time For when it appeared that the Apostles discerned the secrets of mens hearts and inflicted death on those that proceeded hypocritically in their Christianity it is no mervail that none of the rest durst joyne themselves to them as S. Lâ—ke informes us Acts V. 13. that is of those that were not perswaded sincerely to imbrace and untertake Christianity And Excommunication is onely for those who appear not to be sincerely Christians denying it either by expresse profession or by consequence of their actions inconsistent with it Simon Magus may well be reckoned the first Who being sentenced by S. Peter to have nor part nor lot in this Word that is in any thing which Christianity pretendeth to give because it appeared that hee had professed it out of hope to learn how to do such strange feats as might advance the credit and ends of his Magick is by him exhorted indeed to repentance but so that the Apostle engages not himself that is the Church to pray for him as not satisfied yet of the truth of his repentance and conversion to Christianity Acts VIII 18-24 Which is the very practice of the primitive Church as I have showed more at large in the Right of the Church pag. 17-27 towards Apostates Murtherers and Adulterers whom many times and in divers parts they restored not to the Communion of the Church As counting it very difficult for them that had failed so grosly to give competent assurance of sincere Christianity though exhorting them to repentance and giving them hope of forgivenesse from the goodnesse of God when they found not reason to ingage the Church by restoring them to become the warrant of it In consequence to this passage of S. Peter with Simon Magus and in consideration of those Texts of the New Testament which I have handled afore though I acknowledg a Power of excommunicating in the Church yet I do not imagine that any man could be absolutely excommunicated further than this severity of Discipline was in force which refused Penance to some of the most grievous sinnes For whosoever was or might be by the custome in force re-admitted upon Penance is rather excommunicate by his own act if hee refuse it than by any act of the Church that requires it But in as much as whosoever is refused communion till hee perform his Penance is absolutely refused not performing it there is never a Penitential Canon in the records of the Church never a passage mentioning Penance in any of those that writ before the Canons of the Church were in writing that deposes not for a Power of excommunicating in the Church As for those whose sinnes were allowed no hope to be re-admitted though they were absolutely shut out of the Church yet in as much as they were sent to God with hope of mercy they were saved if saved by that Key which by authority as well as knowledge let them into heaven by shutting them out of the Church But suppose this case may be understood otherwise for the possibility of the thing those that were subject to be excommunicated by the Synagogue are not therefore disabled to excommunicate one of themselvs any more than those who now depart from the Church of Rome are disabled to excommunicate one of their own though wee suppose them to passe for Jewes to the Romanes their Masters and to injoy thereby the exercise of their Christianity For so long as their Interest obliged not the Romanes to distinguish between carnal and spiritual Jewes it is no mervail if allowing the Jewes to governe themselves in the Land of Promise they allowed them also to persecute those whom they took for Apostates though their own subjects But when the persecution upon the death of Steven ceased whether by the conversion of Paul or by the death of Herod or whatsoever might move the Jewes to surcease not the Romanes to forbid it no mervail if the Romanes maintained that liberty which the Jewes tolerated that is persecuted not in those whom they held Apostates For if the Romanes themselves in after times did not alwaies persecute Christianity when they allowed it not is it any thing strange that the Jewes who held their own Religion from the meer grant of the Romanes should finde cause not to persecute their Apostates as they counted the Christians with that Power which they were allowed by the Romanes This being the case of the first Christians in Palestine it will be easie thereby to take measure how it must stand with them in the dispersions of the Jewes to whom they were to bring the Gospel in the first place For suppose it intertained with that repute among them which might preserve it from being persecuted the fore-said reason would oblige the Christians to communicate with the Jewes as well in the service of God in the Synagogue as in civil converse Though obliged moreover as they should be able to assemble themselves for the service of God as Christians So the Christians of Antiochia whom Paul and Barnabas assembled in the Church for a year together Acts XI 26. were not to forbear to serve God with the Jews in the Synagogue so long as they and Christianity could hold so much credit with them as to give hope of reducing them to it So when the same Paul and Barnabas created Presbyters for the Churches which they had founded Acts XIV 23. sure they intended them not for the Synagogue which was provided without them But to maintaine the communion of those Churches in the service of God as Christians As for the Romanes their Soveraignes by whose grant the Jewes injoyed all that use of their Lawes which they injoyed no man will mervail that they took no notice of the difference between Jewes and Christians so long as the Jewes complained not when wee see them refuse to make themselves executioners of their wrath upon the Christians when they did complain Wee must not forget Gallio Acts XVIII 12-17 when Paul was brought afore him taking the difference to be onely about names and terms of their own Law and refusing to be judge in it though leaving them to persecute the Christians as by their own Customs namely by scourging they might do Nor mervail that hee at that time should think no more of it when wee finde by Origen that Celsus the Epicurean writing against the Christians two hundred years after takes it for a suit about goats wooll which is nothing As for the Edict of Claudius that all Jewes should depart from Rome Acts XVIII 2. the case is plain that Aquila and Priscilla and all native Jewes though Christians were involved in it and bound to withdraw But whether or no it layed hold on those that had been converted to Christianity being Gentiles and had not the legal mark of Jewes which was Circumcision upon them by the text of S. Luke appears not No though wee suppose that which I have showed in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 53-57 to be
because being to be held as a Heathen or a Publicane as being Excommunicate that is to say suppposing that to be true which Erastus would have to be salse by consequence and in effect it would become lawfull to sue him before Gentiles as being no longer a Christian Now when it followeth What forever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven If wee take binding and loosing in a general sense to signifie that Power of giving Law so that hereeby the Church is inabled to give Law to the Church setting aside for the present who of the Church is to give Law who to receive it then I say that by virtue hereof the Power of Excommunicating is given to the Church Because it is nothing else but such a Right established by a Law of God And if God give his Church a Power to make Laws then hee gives it Power to make a Law that shall give force to all the rest by inacting that penalty that shall be requisite to restrain disobedience But if wee take the terms of binding and loosing as they are used among the Jews and by consequence when that which is unlawfull is done for declaring what is lawfull or unlawfull to be done to be discharged of it I say that admitting the difference between the Law and the Gospel which I have established the Power of Excommunicating will follow in the Church For supposing the Law not to tender remission of sin in order to life everlafting but to the remporal privileges of a Jew to be bound and to be loose will signifie no more than to be in or out of possession of those privileges uncapable or capable of the fame by doing or not doing what the Law requireth to be done for that purpose In the mean time this Power will argue a Common-wealth of Israel founded by God by virtue of which foundation the Power of those who are inabled by the Law to make this declaration takes effect to all purposes contained in the Law But. supposing the Gospel to tender remission of sins in order to life everlasting upon such terms as the Covenant of Grace importeth To be bound and to be loose will signifie freedom from sin or the captivity and fervitude of it And therefore the Power of declaring this estare and what is to be done for the attaining of it will necessarily inserre a Society of the Church founded upon the Power of making that declaration whereupon any man may be accepted for such Neither can it be imagined that any part any degree of the fame can be in any man but so farr and to effect as the Community of the Church shall have allowed It is not now unknown that divers of those that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome do challenge the Power of making Law for the Church by virtue of this Power of binding and loosing given by our Lord to his Apostles And this opinion taketh place by the former interpretation of these words which being admitted that consequence cannot be refused But taking the Power of binding and loosing to be by virtue of the Keyes of Gods House which are the Keyes of David or the House of David the figure of the Church which is that signification which the language of the Scripture required when our Lord. having promised his Church adds Mat. XVI 19. Unto thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven what soever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven The Power of binding and loosing in the Church will be correspondent to that which the Doctors of the Synagogue had of declaring this or that lawfull or unlawfull according to Moses Laws and a man tied to do this or that for maintaining his privilege by it And having said this I conceive I have done more than hee that distinguished these two meanings in our Lords words thought fit to do Hee distinguishing thus in the first book de Synedriis pag. 291 hath thought it enough to argue that neither the one nor the other will serve to ground the Power of Excommunicating in the Church Wherein what hee hath proved I referre my self to that which hath been said But in what sense the words of our Lord are to be understood according to his own opinion hee hath not declared how requisite foever it had been to do as I according to my opinion indeavor to do As for that little Objection that in Our Lords words it is not persons but things that are said to be bound and loose It is to be underflood that things are neither bound nor loose of themselves But that by the way of common understanding of men and speech it is attributed to them from the obligations that Iye upon men or persons by virtue of which obligations or freedom from them such things as they import are said to be bound or loose as lawfull or unlawfull for them to use who using them are either bound or free to such rights as the using or not using of them inferrs Though by consequence of this Power the Power of binding by Law or loosing that is of leaving free without tying by Law will naturally follow For as in Civil Government whatfoever person or persons are absolutely and without limitaiton indowed with the Soveraign Power must necessaraily be indowed with the Power of giving Law whereby they do but limit themselves what Law they will govern by which is before those Laws be declared their will and pleasure So if wee suppose in the Church a Power of admitting into and casting out of the Society of the Church wee must needs suppose a Power of giving Law to this Society because no Society at all can have Communion with it self but according to some Rules of exercising the said Communion which for the present are called Laws Now our Lord Christ having given his Disciples the Power of binding and Loosing by opening or shutting the doors of his Church that is by admitting into or excluding out of it hath thereby given them the Power of framing his Catholick Church Not that they are so properly said to binde those whom they shut out of the Church For when Christianity declareth mankinde to be under sin not to be freed of it but by submitting to Chrissianity the bond is contracted by him that finneth the shutting of the Church door upon him is but refusing him the cure whereof hee tenders himself uncapable But those whom they admit into the Church they are properly said to loose because though they cannot be loosed without their own act yet that act is not to be done without submitting to that authority which is intrusted to require it And this authority with those who acknowledge it by being admitted into the Church is that which consstuteth the Society and Corporation of the Church For admitting into the Church and allowing to continue
in the Church are both one and the fame act because they proceed both upon the fame of Christianity and preserving Unity in the Church Therefore at present I speak of both under one And if it be demanded whether the Power of binding and loosing do signifie generally binding by Law and not hindering Or particularly binding by shutting out of the Church for sin and loosing by admitting into the Church or retaining in the Church as free from sin I answer that expresly and formally the Power of binding and loosing signifies the later But the former by consequence For in the Common-wealth also the Power of giving Law is the same in generalls with the Power of Jurisdiction in particulars All parts of Soveraignty flowing naturally from that act whereby it becomes settled upon some person or persons Whose will is necessarily the Law whereby it is to be governed in as much as it is not limited by the original establishment thereof and acts done legally by vietue of the fame And so the Disciples of our Lord being prevented by nothing but our common Christianity which our Lord Christ having established left them the framing of his Church what they or those who claim under them shall do to obligue the Church obligeth by virtue of this Power of admitting into or excluding out of the Church And it is truly said that the Power of giving Law to the Church as the Church by virtue the Power of the Keyes belongs to the Church Provided that the effect of it belimited to those things which after the preaching of our Lord remained for his Apostles and Disciples as well as their Assistants and Succcessors to determine for the framing of Gods Catholick Church Before I leave this point I shall desire that the consequence of our Lords discourse may be considered For unlesse the command of resorting to the Church be understood as sending to binde or loose him to the Church that is supposed to be bound to sin or loose from it that which is inferred Whatfoever yee binde on earth will be utterly impertinent to that which went before Tell the Church But if wee suppose the speech to concerne Excommunication and Penance by consequence wee give a good reason why it followes Againe I say unto you that if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to be demanded it shall besall them from my Father in the heavens For supposing as known by the general and original practice of the Church whereof mention hath been made in the premises that the means of loosing from sin was the Prayers of the Church wee conclude that our Lord in the next place could not inferre any thing more proper and pertinent to that which hee had premised than this To wit how the Penitent is to be reslored to the favor of God and upon presumption thereof to the unity od the Church To wit by the Prayers of the Church For when hee sayes the Prayers of two Chrussians will be available with God hee must needs signifie that the Prayers of the Church will be much more available I know there are some Expositors Origen S. Austine and Theophylact of old and Grotius of late who when our Lord having said Let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publicane inferreth whatsoever yee binde on earth do understand that hereby particular Christians do binde and loose particular Christians when they show them the sin they do and they that do it will or will not make reparations And truly in as much as the knowledge of sin is a condition requisite to make the bond thereof take firm hold upon the conscience whosever procures this knowleg is truly said to binde as hee that shows the means of being loose is truly said to loose him that useth those means But if this were here meant there were no reason why our Lord should send him to the Church whom hee declares to be thus bound which this opinion supposeth Never dreaming of the Synagogue when our Lord faith Tell the Church For to say that a private Christian bindeth or looseth him whom the Church hath first declared to be in the wrong and not otherwife is as much as to say that a private Christian neither bindes not looses but the Church Not because hee cannot binde and loose before God in that sense which I spoke of afore but because hee cannot binde or loose any man as to the Church whom the Church had bound afore by declaring his sin For this opinion supposeth that when our Lord faith Whatsoever yee binde on earth hee speaketh of the sins of those that had refused to hear the Church afore Which being supposed it will remain manifest that when our Lord faith Let him to be thee as a Heathen or a Publicane immediately adding whatsoever yee binde on earth hee doth not onely teach what the wronged party but what every Christian is to do to wit what the acts of the Church oblige him to do as a Christian and one of the Church not as one that is wronged though the discourse rising upon this cafe if thy brother wrong thee end in the mention of him alone let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publicane because of the reason which follows grounded in the Power of binding and loosing which all Christians are to acknowledg These things being proved I will here repeat and insist upon that observation which heretofore I have advanced in another place that our Lord whom from the premises I suppose to treat here of Excommunication forbids that course to be held in the Church which then was used in the Synagogue namely that private persons should Excommunicate one another The effect of such Excommunications reaching no further than themselves or their inferiors and not obliging any stranger to take such a person for Excommunicate Which observation I oppose to an argument made from that which was used in the Primitive Church for Martyrs and Consessors in bonds for the Gospel to restore to the Communion of the Church those that were under Penance Tertul. de Pudic XXII Ad martyras I. Cypr. Epist X. XI XII XIII XIV XV. XVII XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXXVIII and John the Monk of the deserts of Egypt having Excommunicated the younger Theodosius hee was not satisfied with the Bishops absolution untill the Monk had done the fame Hence it is argued that Excommunication in the Church was the same that had been practised in the Synagogue because private Christians used that Power as private Jewes had done The ansswer is easie to him that will observe the reason of such Excommunication and obsoulution in the Church There were in the Church from the beginning besides those who had the chief authority of governing it divers ranks of persons of special esteem The rank of Widows honored with publick maintenance from the Church as wee understand by S. paul orders I Tim. V. 3-16 The rank of Virgins the Prerogative whereof wee may understand by Tertullians book
Christo Deo ad confederandam Disciplinam Homicidium Adulterium Fraudem Perfidiam caetera scelera prohibentes That hee had discovered nothing of their Sacraments or Mysteries besides obstinacy not to sacrifice but assemblies before day to sing praises to Christ and to God and to confederate their Discipline prohibiting Murther Adultery violation of Faith and other hainous deeds For the Eucharist is the Sacrament by which this discipline of Christianity is established But farr from being voluntary to those whom wee suppose Christians As for Origen in Celsum I. pag. 4. It is manifest that those private Contracts which Celsus calumniateth that the Christians made among themselves as against the State are acknowledged by him to have been those that were solemnized at their Feasts of Love That is at the Eucharist which from the beginning was a part of them whether then it were so or not And therefore the confederacy of Christians among themselves whom these Authors speak of was no otherwise voluntary than Christianity and therefore not voluntary supposing it The words of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which I do not admit to be well corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As being too obscure an expression for so clear a Writer as Origen to say that it was of force to do more mischief than the Bacchanalia which for that jealousie were put down as wee understand by Livy besides that hee must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not have used a general word for a particular And therefore I suppose hee alludes to the Verse of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolving by private confederacy that publick League and Bond wherein the peace of every Commonwealth consisteth Thus then saith Origen And hee seeks to calumniate the Love so called of Christians towards one another as subsisting at the peril of the Publick and able to do the mischief of disloyalty If this will not serve the turn but it be demanded that the Communion of the Church was then frequented by voluntary agreement let mee demand whether the authority of the Apostles in the Church subsisted upon no other title For as to the credit of them in delivering the Gospel believing what God had given them to evidence it with it is not possible for any man that pretends to be a Christian to question it If then it be said that they who were tyed to believe them concerning the truth of the Gospel were not bound to receive them as chief Governors of the Church let mee demand how it came to passe that those were received all over the Church whom it was believed that they had granted their authority to or what part soever of it There being no obligation to tye them to receive such afore others and the variety of judgment which all men are subject to being such as never to agree in the same reason where nothing obliges So likewise whereas it is manifest that the Church then both had and must needs have many Rules the general importance whereof was received by all though with particular differences according to times and places I demand how any such could come in force when neither the Jewes deserved that love that all should imbrace them for their sake nor the judgments of all Christians so different in all things could concurr in any thing which their Christianity imported not Especially I demand this concerning the indowment of the Church because it is evident that as Constantine first made good by the Empire all the acts of them that had given whatsoever was ravished away by the persecution of Diocletian then gave much more of his own So all Kingdoms and Commonwealths after the example of that Empire have proceeded to indow it with the first-fruits of their goods in Houses and Glebes and Tithes and Oblations I demand then what imposture could have been then so powerfull as to seduce all the Christian world in a mater so nearly concerning their interest had they not stood convict by the constant practice of Christendom before Constantine that it was no imposture more than the Christianity brought in by the same Apostles Lastly whereas it is acknowledged what strange severity of discipline the Primitive Church was under by the Rules of Penance which then were in force though I have showed in another place that they were yet stricter under the Apostles and that the severity of them necessarily abated as the zele of Christianity under them did abate I demand what common sense can allow that all Christians should agree to make themselves fools by submitting themselves to such Rules which nothing but their own consent could oblige them to imbrace For neither can it be said that they had them from the Jews nor had they been extant among them that the Christians would have received them for their sake CHAP. XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The difference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Secular Power in determining maters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to professe the contrary of that which hee believeth Every man is bound to professe that Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather than the State neither being infallible I Shall not now need to say much to those terms which the Leviathan holds beside that which hath been already said to evidence the Society of the whole Church and the foundation thereof by the Scriptures Hee that acknowledges in the Church a Power to judge of true repentance and accordingly to binde and to loose and that upon the same score and therefore to the same effect as it baptizes together with the Power of appointing publick persons in the Church and the Church in which hee acknowledges the Power to be the Body of Christians in each City by what Title doth hee suppose the Church to hold this Power or this Right the evidence whereof hee fetches from the Scriptures whereby hee proveth it For those Scriptures do not import by what Act it is established but onely that it was in force or use at the doing of those things which they relate Can it be imagined to be any thing else than the act of the Apostles declaring the will of God in that behalf If then by divine right that is by Gods appointment and ordinance imported by those Scriptures the Church that is the Body of Christians in each City stands indowed with those rights how shall the Church that is the Soveraign Power of each State stand indowed with the same rights by the same Title that is by Gods appointment evidenced by the same Scriptures How shall Gods Law that inableth the Body of the Church to binde and to
by making that profession which the Church requireth owneth the person of the Church for Corporations are persons in Law for the evidence which hee trusteth in the mater of his Salvation I shall not need to have recourse to the Article of our Creed to prove that hee owneth the unity of it and obligeth himself upon his Salvation to abide in the same Nor indeed have I any need here to repeat the processe by which I have demonstrated the corporation of the Church Here I inferre as clearly gained by it that the effect of binding or loosing men from sin is limited by God to a condition of acknowedging or not acknowledging the Church for two reasons and in two cases For hee that is admitted to Baptisme upon professing the Faith of the Church and undertaking to live as a Christian if hee transgresse this profession forfeits the communion of the Church which hee attained by making it And hee that acknowledgeth the unity of the Church which all that are baptized must needs acknowledge forfeits his share in it by doing that which dissolveth it though hee transgresse not the profession of his Christianity doing it Now it appeareth by S. Paul and our Lord that Christians under Infidels are forbidden to carry any of their sutes out of the Church and commanded to end them among themselves And shall hee not forfeit the benefit of his Christianity and become bound by the sin hee committeth in so doing that doth this I may therefore grant Erastus and this Doctor that Let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publicane signifies be it lawful for thee to implead him before Unbelievers But it must be as I said afore upon supposition that hee is first excommunicate and become no Christian to thee and therefore to be used as a Heathen or a Publicane As also I grant him that to be delivered to Satan signifies not to be excommunicate but supposes it For if S. Paul calling the miraculous graces of the Apostles time the manifestation of the Spirit do teach us that the world was thereby convicted That God of a truth was in his Church as hee saith again 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 then was it to the same purpose and effect that those who were shut out of the Church should become liable to the incursions of evil Spirits To wit To make the difference between the Land of Goshen and the rest of Egypt visible It was therefore necessary that the power of binding or loosing in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord should be accompanied with the gift of the Holy Ghost which our Lord breathed upon them For by them the world was to be assured upon what termes they might be loosed from sinne and continue in the Unity of the Church which if they forsook they became bound again But there is not the same reason why the same should be thought requisite to the same power in their successors For those terms being once declared and settled hee that professeth and teacheth them as the Apostles have taught is a competent Minister to loose or to bind another not onely though hee have not that gift of the Holy Ghost that may make him appear to be appointed by God to that purpose but also though hee be bound himself because hee undergoes not that which hee professeth Now if the premises be true it is a mistake as grosse as pernicious to imagine that particular Christians by the light common to all Christians are Judges in all things concerning Christianity or the Scriptures For if the attaining of Christianity and Salvation by it require no more but to know the Rule of of Faith and the common precepts of Christian conversation together with the Offices wherewith God is to be served by his Church If the gift of the Holy Ghost be promised to those that are baptized upon undertaking this then is the understanding of the rest of the Scriptures no further required at their hands neither have they any warrant for that which they shall do upon any such presumption as this The Church that hath received of God the trust of maintaining unity in this service of God so as may best stand with the maintenance of that profession which it presupposeth hath by consequence an obligation upon them to stand to the resolution thereof saving that common Christianity which the constitution thereof presupposeth It is therefore utterly a most poisonous doctrine to be infused into the ears of Christian people that they are by their Christianity free to cast themselves into Churches as they may meet with those whom they best like to communicate with It is therefore a thing to stand astonished at that they who have hitherto declamed against any thing in Christianity the reason whereof is not to be derived from the Scripture not seeing in the Scripture any such thing as a Church that was not founded by the Apostles or by commission from the Apostles not in all Christianity any thing ever counted a Church that was not planted by mean authority derived thence to some Church should now think themselves at liberty to build Churches upon no other foundation than an arbitrary agreement of seven persons Suppose I say nothing as yet in what right and interest several Members or rather several ranks and qualities concurre to the resolution of the Church Suppose I grant the power may be so abused that several parts of the Church may stand obliged to provide for themselves without the whole which is al that the common profession of Reformation importeth Shall we not be throughly reformed till we renounce one Catholick Church as visibly a corporation as the Baptisme which we received upon acknowledging of it is visible If every Church be planted by the authority of the Apostles to that effect extant and alive in some Church then is not the communion thereof with all other Churches by the means of that which planted it communicating with all arbitrary but a necessary consequence of that obligation to the Unity of the whole which it gets by being a Church Nor is there any reason why the acts of the whole whether done by representatives in Synods or resolved at distance of time and place by intelligence and correspondence of the absent should any way depend upon the satisfaction of particular Christians how just or how requisite For neither doth their conformity to them in any reasonable construction import any ingagement of their conscience to the justice or necessity of them Unlesse it could be said that a man could not live in society without binding himself to answer for the acts of that society wherein hee liveth Which hee that saith will not find an independent congregation to continue in for four and twenty hours or to enter into onely for one For what obligation can all Christians have to answer for that which our Christianity upon profession whereof we are become Christians containeth not Indeed when the abuse is so visible that the unity of
the Church provided for the service of God upon supposition of this common Christianity evidently destroyeth what it pretendeth to maintain I leave the case at present for their plea who cannot obtain the consent of the whole if they reform themselves But you see what reason I have to deny that this Reformation consisteth in voiding the obligation of the acts and decrees of the Church For the same reason the authority of Pastors is as visibly derived from the act of the Apostles in primitive Churches as their own authority is visible in the Scriptures And unlesse all Christendom could be cousened or forced at once to admit such an imposture they can be no Churches further than the name in which it is derived from the Law of nature and reason and the liberty left private Christians to dispose of themselves in Ecclesiastical communion where they please For of that liberty neither the Scriptures nor all Christianity since the time of them will yield one example I marvel therefore that S. Pauls commission to Timothy 1 Tim. V. 17. should seem to import no more then a reproof and that at the discretion of him that is reproved whether hee will admit it or return him as good as hee brings For if S. Pauls commission to Timothy extend no further what could hee have done more himself had hee been present And the Apostle injoyning obedience to those who first brought the Gospel and to those who presently ruled those Churches in the same terms Hebr. XIII 7 17. must needs be thought to give the successors their predecessors authority saving the difference observed afore So certain is it which I have advanced in another place that this opinion is not tenable without denying the authority of the Apostles in the quality of Governours of the Church For as to the exception that may be made concerning the use of this Power I have already demurred to the doubt that may rest in difference between the succession of Faith and the succession of persons In fine not to insist here what the respective interests of publick and private persons in the Church are and ought to be because it is a point that cannot here be voided It shall be enough to say that of necessity the authority of publick persons in and for the whole must be such as may make and maintain the Church a Society of reasonable people not a Common-wealth of the Cyclopes in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no body is ruled by any body in any thing according to Euripides As for the Synagogues that may be presumed rather then evidenced to have subsisted in the ten Tribes during the Schisme Let him make appear what hee can hee shall never have joy of it towards his intent so long as the difference between the Law and the Gospel stands which I have â—ettled that the Church and the State were both one and the same Body under the Law as standing both by the same title of it But several under the Gospel the one standing upon the common ground of all Civil Government the other upon the common Faith of Christianity which ought to make all Christian States one and the same whole Church For in the two Tribes who were at their freedom to resort to the Temple for that service of God which was confined to the Temple which all could neither alwayes do nor were bound to do there is no record of any settled order for assembling themselves to serve God either in the Law obliging of right or actually practised according to Historical truth How much lesse in the ten Tribes being fallen from the Law by the Schism And if there wanted not those who had not bowed the knee to Baal nor Prophets and schools of Prophets under whom they might assemble themselves yet was this far from a Society formed by a certain Rule and Order for communicating in Gods service as I have shewed the Church is And therefore hee who upon that account thinks himself free from the Rule of Gods service under which wee now have in the Church of England must first either nullifie the Gospel as owning no such thing as one visible Church or prove the Church in which hee received his Christianity to be apostate Now I confesse our Doctor here makes use of an assumption which I intend not to deny being an evident truth That every man hath the Soveraign Power of judging in mater of Religion what himself is to beleeve or to do For how should any man be accountable to God for his choice upon other termes But hee will intangle himself most pitifully if hee imagine That God hath turned all men loose to the Bible to make what they can of it and professe the Religion that they may fansie to themselves out of it Even those who make men beleeve the Infallibility of the Church must in despite of themselves appeal to the judgement of whomsoever they perswade to pronounce that so it is And for the rest how much soever he referre himself to him that hath intangled him in that snare it proceeds wholly upon this supposition to which hee hath once made his understanding a slave But if all the world should do as men do now in England make every fansy taken up out of the Bible a Law to their Faith not questioning whether ever professed owned or injoined by the Church or not it would soon become questionable whether there be indeed any such thing as Christianity or not these that professe it agreeing in nothing wherein they would have it consist And for my part the the mater is past question supposing what hath been said That God provided from the beginning of Christianity that all Churches should be linked together by a Law of visible Communion in the service of God and so to make one Church For by this means to become a Member of any Church was to become a Member of the whole Church by the right of visible Communion with all Churches into which all Members of any Church were baptized And this it is which made the Church visible For when a man had no further to enquire but what Christians they were who in every City communicated with all Christians besides the choice was ready made without further trial avoiding the rest for Hereticks or Schismaticks And this choice being made there was no fear of offense by reading the Scriptures the sense whereof this choice confined to the Faith and Rules received through the whole Church So that speaking of Gods Institution every man is Soveraign to judge for himself in mater of Religion supposing the Communion of the Church and the sense of the Scripture to be confined within that which it alloweth But hee who thereupon takes upon him to judge of Religion out of the Scripture not knowing what bounds the Communion of the Church hath given the sense of it shall never impute it to Gods Ordinance if hee perish by chusing amisse Now if it be objected
who will or can think it reasonable that the Church should be thought to avow all that hath been written by any of the Church and is come to the hands of posterity by whatsoever means Or who will think it strange that a Christian should not understand the Rule of his Christianity though the right understanding thereof should have been the condition requisite to the making of him a Christian If the profession made by the writing from which posterity hath it were evidently so notorious to the Church and the maintenance thereof so obstinate that the Church could not avoid taking notice of it and contradicting it without quitting the trust of the Rule of Faith deposited with it then and not otherwise I do admit that the contrary of that which is regularly and ordinarily taught by Church Writers is inconsistent with the Rule of Faith Besides this another presumption or prescription limiting the interpretation or Scriptures in such things as concern the Traditions of the Apostles wee may be confident to have gained from the Society of the Church demonstrated by the premises To wit that if any thing be questionable whether it come by Tradition from the Apostles or not there can no conclusion be made in the negative because it is not expressed in the Scriptures Here I desire all them that will not mistake mee to take notice that I intend not here to conclude or inferre what force those Traditions which I pretend may come from the Apostles though it be not certified by the Scriptures may have to oblige the Church which question I found it requisite to set aside once afore But that which here I affirme onely concerns the question of fact that it is not impossible to make evidence that some Orders or Rites and customes of the Church had their beginning of being brought in for Laws to the Church by the Apostles though not written in the Scriptures Confessing neverthelesse that the proving hereof which no reason can hinder mee to proceed with here will be a step to the resolving of that force which the Traditions of the Apostles whether written or not written in the Scriptures have and ought to have in obliging the Church at present when it shall appear to be common to written and unwritten Traditions to have their authority from the Apostles And the evidence of this prescription depends upon a more general one limiting the interpretation of Scripture in mater of this nature that is concerning the Laws of the Church how far they were intended by the Apostles to tye the Church not to exceed the practice of the Church succeeding the times of the Apostles The demonstration whereof consists in certain instances of things recorded by the Scriptures of the New Testament either evidencing onely mater of fact that is what was then done and therefore importing no precept what was to be done for the future or importing such precepts as no man will stand to be now in force It is manifest that the Scriptures report how the Disciples under the Apostles were wont to assemble themselves to serve God by the Offices of Christianity upon the first day of the week called vulgarly Sunday after the Resurrection of Christ John XX. 19 26. Acts. XX. 7. Con. XVI 2. Apoc. I. 10. Speaking of the banishment of S. John conforming himself to the times of the Church for the service of God and thereupon ravish'd in Spirit Which no man questions It is said indeed in this case as it is said by others in the question of Tithes that the first day of the week is commanded to be kept holy of Christians by the fourth Commandment But I demand of any man that can tell seven whether the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week be the same day of the week or not And if this be unquestionable I demand further whether the Jews were tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep the last day of the week or not Assuring my self that whosoever believes the Scriptures and reads the Commandement that obliges them to rest all that day in which God rested from making Heaven and Earth can no more doubt that they were bound to rest on Saturday than that God rested from making Heaven and Earth upon that day I demand then whether the same precept that obliged them to keep Saturday can oblige Christians to keep Sunday And do conclude that it can no more be said then that the same word signifies both the seventh and the first day So wide an error so small a mistake can cause when faction hath once swallowed it A man would think it a very easie mistake to understand the seventh day of the week which God commands to be hallowed as if it signified one of the seven and no more Which if it were true then were the Jews never tied to rest on the Saturday by Gods Law but might have chosen which day of seven they would have rested on notwithstanding that God rested on the Saturday which is to make the reason of the precept impertinent to the mater of it I intend not to deny that the reason and ground upon which the Christian Church came to be enjoyned to keep the first day of the week is drawn and to be drawn from the fourth Commandment But I say further that the reason and ground of a positive Law makes it not a Law but the act of him that hath power to give Law signifying that hee intends to inact it for a Law whether hee expresse the reason or not And thus I say as I have hitherto said concerning other Ordinances which have the force of Law to oblige the Church that they can no more stand by virtue of such Ordinances as I acknowledge to have been torrespondent to them under the Law of Moses than Christianity by the virtue of Judaisme or the Gospel by virtue of the Law which though it bear witnesse to the Gospel yet hee were a Madman that should say That hee who was bound to be circumcised by virtue of that circumcision should be bound to be baptized supposing him of the number of Christians who agree that Baptisme coming in force circumcision could no more continue in force And surely those simple people who of late times have taken upon them to keep the Saturday though it were in truth and effect no lesse than the renouncing of their Christianity yet in reason did no more then pursue the grounds which their Predecessors had laid and drawn the conclusion which necessarily followes upon their premises that if the fourth Commandment be in force then either the Saturday is to be kept or the Jews were never tied to keep it Besides this particular it is manifest that the Apostles observe the third and sixth and ninth hours of the day for the service of God Acts II. 15. III. 1. X. 3 9 30. And this according to an Order then in force among Gods people according to the Scriptures Psal LV. 18
is evident that hee allowes them that which the Apostles had forbidden because it is evident that this is one of those differences which Jews by the Law were bound to make If therefore there be this difference in the Scriptures it is manifest that the leter of them doth not determine what obliges So again the same Apostle 1 Cor. XI 1-16 disputeth at large that men ought not but women ought to cover their heads at praying or prophesying in the Church For the intent whereof though it hath been the subject of whole books in this age I conceive I need go no further than Tertullians book de Velandis Virginibus who living so much nearer the Apostles knew better the custoÌ„ms of their Churches than all the Criticks of this time Hee disputes the case in question then whether Virgins had a privilege not to vail their faces at Divine Service by arguing that they cannot be excepted from S. Pauls words and alleging the example of the Church of Corinth where at that very time the Virgins vailed their faces at Divine Service as other women did Which whether it tye the Church or not at this time it will scarce be granted by those who now practice it not And in another place 1 Tim. V. 3-6 hee showeth that there was then an Order of Widowes whose maintenance hee ordereth to come from the stock of the Church as likewise how they are to be qualified and how imployed Of which Order there is no where any step remaining in the Church at â—resent though nothing be more imperative than the Order concerning it So the precept of the Apostle serves not to oblige the Church at present though by Scripture And if I may use the argument ad hominem upon the supposition of those that I dispute with who intend not to take any thing for true which I prove not as debating the principles of Christian truth it is manifest that the Apostle James V. 14. appointeth that the sick be anointed with oil together with prayers as well for the recovery of their health as for the forgivenesse of their sins Which it is manifest that it cannot appear not to oblige the Church at this time by virtue of that Scripture which injoyneth it And therefore to say nothing at present whether it do indeed oblige the now Church or not those that believe it doth not oblige cannot be able to give a reason why it obligeth not by the Scripture alone And this is the argument whereby I prove that the interpretation of Scripture as concerning mater of Law to the Church or the means to be used in determining what obligeth what not cannot transgresse the tradition and practice of the Church Because that which is propounded in the Scriptures as meer mater of fact may oblige and that which is propounded as mater of precept creating right may not oblige the Scripture not determining whether it intend that obligation to be universal or not For having showed afore that the Church is a Society instituted by God to which these Rules are given as Laws to govern it in the exercise of those Offices wherein the Communion therâ—of consisteth all reasonable men must grant that as the intent and meaning of all Laws is to be gathered from the primitive and original practice of that Society for which they were made so is the reason of all Orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles and by consequence their intent how farr they were to oblige to be measured by the first and most ancient practice of the Church which first had them to use Whereunto let us adde these considerations That the Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles were of necessity in force before mention can be made of them in their writings That the writing of them is neither the reason why they oblige nor a thing thereunto requisite but meerly supervenient to the force of them And that there is sufficient evidence that those motives to believe which the Scripture recordeth but cannot evidence are neverthelesse true and that the truth of those motives cannot be evident but by the Society of the Church which the said Laws do maintain For upon these conâ—â—derations it will appear necessarily consequent that as there be Apostolical Traditions which the Scripture evidently witnesseth so evidence may be made of them without Scripture The Rule of S. Austine how to discern what Traditions do indeed come from the Apostles is well enough known to be this To wit that which is observed over all the Church though it cannot be discerned when where or by whom it came first in force that is in his times by the authority of what Synod it was settled that must be deemed and taken to come from the authority of the Apostles themselves I will not use the terms of Synod or Synods because I conceive the Church was from the beginning by virtue of the perpetual intelligence and correspondence settled and used between the parts of it a standing Synod even when there was no Assembly of persons authorized to consent in behalf of their respective Churches Such things as became requisite to be determined in any Church being thereby so communicated to the rest as the order taken in one either to be accepted by them or redressed Neither will I say that the Rule is so effectual as it is true For I cannot warrant how general the practice of every thing that may come in question can appear to have been over the whole Church nor whether it may appear to have begun from some act of the Church to be designed by some place or persons or not which in S. Austines time I doubt not might be made to appear and being made to appear would maintain the Rule to be true Nor have I need of any such Rule as may serve to discern whatsoever may become questionable whether it come from the Apostles themselves or not It shall suffice mee here to presume thus much that no man can prescribe against any Rule of the Church that it comes not from the Apostles because it is not recorded in the holy Scriptures And therefore that nothing hindereth competent evidence to be made of the authority of the Apostles in some Orders of the Church of which there is no mention in the Scriptures Correspondently to that which was settled afore concerning the Rule of Faith that no man can prescribe against any thing questionable that it is no part of it because it is not evident in Scripture or because such arguments may be made against it out of the Scriptures which every one whose salvation it concerns is not able evidently to assoile And all this being determined I intend neverthelesse that it still shall remain questionable how farr these Orders of the Apostles oblige the Church Because I intend not to prescribe from all this that those Orders which shall appear to have been brought in by the Apostles may not become uselesse to the Church CHAP.
XXII The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Learning or Holinesse How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth The pre-eminenee of the Primitive The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church Of Arnobius Lactantius Tertullian Origen Clemens and the approbation of posterity THese things being said wee have got ground for a resolution in the dispute concerning the authority of the Fathers in maters questionable concerning Christianity and the interpretation of the Scriptures For truly did the credit of those things which they affirm consist in the reputation of their holinesse or learning whether or no the premises be true the consequence would be lame Hee that could make a question of the godlinesse and of the Christianity of those persons to whom wee owe the maintenance and propagation of Christianity under God by preserving Christs flock from the contagion of Heresies by intertaining the unity of the Church and by laying down their lives for the truth must by consequence question though not that Christianity which hee hath sansied yet that which was delivered by the Apostles Which notwithstanding if the Holy Ghost that was in them to save them by saving the common Christianity hath not given the Church evidence that hee was given them to preserve them from error in understanding the Scriptures wee wrong them and the Holy Ghost in them if wee take the truth of their doctrine upon their credit For though the having of the Holy Ghost presupposeth the profession of Christianity as I have showed yet that importeth no evidence to warrant the truth of all that they might say in defense or interpretation of it And though their learning in that which is proper to Christians that is their skill in the Scriptures be such as these ages that boast so much of learning can never equal because they made it in a maner their whole businesse of study And though some of them as Clemens Tertullian Origen and S. Hiâ—rome that looked about them for further helps to the defense and interpretation of Christianity may well challenge the curiosity of these times for great knowledg Yet because mans wit is alwaies fruitfull in that which it is imployed about and may still be well imployed in clearing the true intent of Christianity and the Scriptures so long as there are contrary opinions and sects which cannot all be true I will not create any prejudice to the learning of this time upon that score which it is evident may and doth imploy more helps of learning than they ever did imploy towards the understanding of the Scriptures Two privileges there are belonging to the Fathers of the Church which no man that writes in these dayes can pretend to how godly how learned soever hee may be The first is that of their age and time creating an infallible trust in point of historical truth concerning the state of Christianity during those ages in which they lived or which they might know This is that which neither Pagans nor Jews nor Mahumetanes can refuse them any more than Christians can refuse to believe them in maters of fact which they relate not as things done in private which themselves with a few more may pretend to have had means to know but which were visible to the world at such time as they writ and wherein had they been otherwise they might have been reproved as imposing upon the world not the belief of that which doth not appear to be true but of that which doth appear to be untrue Neither do I demand that upon this score their credit be admitted any further than that which I have premised will inforce For if I have well concluded that the Church is a Society instituted by our Lord Christ and his Apostles in trust for the maintenance and propagation of Christianity contained in the holy Scriptures which hee deposited with it then is the sense of that time which is nearest the age of the Apostles a legal presumption of the truth of that which it was trusted with And as all Writers that relate things subject to the sense of all men as well as their own have the credit of historical truth and Church writers in maters of fact concerning the Church of their respective ages the state thereof being alwaies visible So those that write under the first ages of the Church though competent authors for the truth of nothing in Christianity for then why should not Christianity be believed upon their credit yet must be admitted as unquestionable witnesses of that Christianity which came hot and tender from the forge of our Lord and his Apostles Nor do I complain that any man refuses them upon this score But when I see how many pretending to search the Scriptures and the truth of things questioned in Christianity never make use of any information they might have from them to argue thereupon the true sense of the Scriptures who if they were to expound any Author of humane learning would count him a mad man that should neglect the records of those Authors that lived nearest the same time and perhaps do themselves imploy the writings of Jewes and Pagans in expounding the very Scriptures I cannot chuse but take it as a mark of prejudice against some truth that men care not to be informed of the primitive Christianity least consequences might be framed against some prejudices of their own which supposing onely the credit of historical truth might prove undeniable And here I must needs mervail at the Cardinal of Perrons demand that the trial of what is to be thought Catholick or universally received in the whole Church of God should proceed chiefly or at least necessarily upon the testimonies of those Writers which lived about the fourth century of years from Christ as that which flourished most for number and learning of Writers For seeing the authority of Church Writers is not grounded upon presumption of their learning And that the credit of historical truth cannot be denied even the single witnesse of those that writ when they were more scarce and lesse knowing at least in Secular studies But what is primitive what accessory is not to be discovered but by the state of those times which were before additions could be made hee that demands to be tryed by the times of three hundred years distance from the original wherein what change may have fallen out not presumption but historical truth must determine I say hee that demands this tryal demands not to be tryed Not that I would deny the Writers of that age and such as follow the credit which their time in the consideration now on foot allowes But that the resolution of what is original and primitive must not come from the testimony thereof but from the comparison of it with the testimony of those ages that went afore The second consideration in which the writings of the Fathers are valuable cometh from that which is now
proved that is from the Society of the Church and the unity thereof from whence it follows that what is founâ—d to be taught in the Church by men authorized by the Communion thereof and qualified to teach and that without contradiction is not contrary to the Rule of Faith but if it be taught with one consent it is part of it Without contradiction I mean here when a man is not charged to transgresse the Faith of the Church in that which hee teacheth much lesse disowned by the Church for teaching it Not when no man is found to hold a contrary opinion which alwaies falls out in things disputable For the Communion of the Church necessarily importeth that a man qualified with authority in it professe nothing contrary to that Faith the profession whereof qualifies all to be of the Church Though other things there be many wherein a man may be allowed not onely to believe but to professe contrary to that which another professes and yet qualified not onely to be of the Church but to bear that authority which the Society thereof constituteth The name therefore of Fathers importeth at least some part of that superiority which the Society of the Church giveth And therefore belongeth not properly to those that are not so qualified though they that are not so qualified may be the authors of such writings as have the lot to remain to posterity But the authority of Fathers which is grounded upon this presumption that persons qualified in the Church teach nothing contrary to the Faith of it because their quality in the Church would become questionable if they should teach that which agrees not with the Faith of the Church This authority I say cannot appear in the writings of private Christians Because the Church is no further chargable by allowing him the Communion of the Church who declareth to believe onely that which indeed contradicts the Rule of Faith then of taking no notice what a private man professes to think out of that ignorance which may beseem a capacity of being better informed Hereupon it is that I think it no exception to the due authority of the Fathers that Arnobius or Laectantius should be utterly disdained in some particulars The one known to have been a Novice in Christianity when hee writ and writing as S. Jerom testifies to declare himself a Christian by trying his stile as being Master of a School of Eloquence in defense thereof against the Gentiles had it seems the ill chance to light upon some writings of the Gnosticks according to Saturninus or Basilides and taking them for Christians because they affected to go under that name translated their monstrous opinions into his work as points of Christianity The other whether a novice or no I cannot say marked neverthelesse by S. Jerome as one more able to refure Gentilisme than to give an account of Christianity and therefore to have been converted to Christianity but not to have learned it what presumption a discreet man can make of Christianity by his Book let every discreet man judg I will not say the like of Justine the Martyr a man who hath deserved farr more of Christianity by renouncing the world and taking upon him the profession and habit of a Philosopher among the Gentiles thereby to gain opportunity of maintaining Christianity on all occasions which the Heathen Philosophers took to maintain the positions of their several sects A resolution truly generous and Christian In the mean time having in him more of a Philosopher than of a Scholar and gathering his knowledg rather from travail and conversation than from reading it is no mervail if hee hath suffered many impostures at least in maters of historical truth which hee that should demand that the Church should answer as allowing his books to be read would be very unreasonable When as bearing no rank in the Church above that of all Christians for any thing I can perceive if hee should have mistaken himself in any thing neerly concerning the substance of Christianity his eminent merits towards the Church might have been of force to have drowned all consideration of them and given his writings passeport to posterity notwithstanding I will not extend this consideration to the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus of Origen and of Tertullian The last whereof that is Tertullian belongs not to this rank having put himself out of the Communion of the Church by making a party against the Church of Carthage upon the pretenses of the Montanists The second that is Origen whatsoever opinions hee had cannot be said either to have held them so resolutely or to have professed them so publickly that those that were nearest him could be thought accessories to them And therefore as his very great merits of the Church otherwise held him in his rank in the Church during his time so his extravagancies cannot impeach that authority which others and hee also in such things as hee agrees with them in do truly purchase by the allowance of the Church The same is to be said of his Master Clemens whose writings as they are not so many so neither his extravagancies so great and considerable But even these eccentrical Writers by being marked for positions particular to them besides the credit of historical truth which in times nearest the Apostles is of great consequence to inform us of the primitive state of Christianity and therefore of incomparable value towards the settling of a right judgment in all things now questionable I say beside that which is common to them with all Writers they get by the exceptions which are made against them the advantage of a Rule of Law in the rest that is to say that setting aside those points in which they are excepted against they are according to the Rule of Faith in things not excepted against against In fine the authority of the whole Church is found to be expresly ingaged in all things that have passed into effect either from the determination of Synods which having been assembled by the free consent thereof have been received by the like free consent whether all or part were present at the Synod or from the act of any particular Church the proceeding and grounds whereof hath been approved of and received into effect by the whole Which in some measure may be said of the writings of particular Doctors In as much as it is manifest that extravagant doctrines may have been published in several parts of the Church which particular Doctors may have imployed their pens to contradict before any Church had imployed any censure to condemn As by Epiphanius in the Heresie of the Origenists it appeareth that Origen was contradicted by Methodius If therefore such extravagances so contradicted be extinguished such writings have continued cherished by the Church it is evidence enough that the Church it self is ingaged in the condemnation of those extravagances which have been suppressed by the means of such writings And all this serves to maintain and
Christ shed for reâ—â—ission of sins the life of the Kingdom of heaven See the unbaptized deprived also of the bread and cup of life is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven where Christ the well of life remains So it appears that the African Church had this custome but held it not necessary to salvation as Baptism But by Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis Cap. LII It appears to have been a custome of the Church when Hereticks were reconciled to the Church by confirmation to give their little ones the Eucharist presently upon it And Ordo Romanus de Baptismo prescribes it after the solemn Baptism before Easter which the French Capitulary I. 161. and Alcuinus also de divinis officiis provideth for And in the Eastern Church Dionysius in the end of the booke de Hierarchiâ Ecclesiasticâ In the mean time it is to be considered that there being no order that all should be baptized Infants nor at what age Whereupon St. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII in Sanctum Bapt. advises at three or four years of age it cannot be said to have been a generall custome of the Church Nor that it could be originall from the Apostles because the solemn times of Baptisme at Easter and Whitsontide cannot be thought to have been settled till Christianity was grown very vulgar For as for those that were baptized upon particular occasions or in danger of death it cannot be thought that the Eucharist was celebrated for their purpose nor doth any example appear that it was ever brought them from the Church On the contrary when the times of Baptisme came to be disused because it was found to be for the best that all should be baptized Infants upon this occasion the receiving of the Eucharist came to be deferred as much longer then was fitting in my opinion then it was given too soon in S. Cyprians time according to the example related by him in his Book de Lapsis where the Child whom the Pagans had given bread dipped in the wine that had been consecrated to their Idols because too young to eat of the flesh of their sacrifices receives the Eucharist in the Church CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable concerning the Scripture Upon what terms the Church may or is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eating blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions I May now proceed I conceive to resolve generally upon what principles any thing questionable in Christianity is determinable and as franckly as briefly do affirm that there are but two sorts of means to resolve us in any thing of that nature Tradition and Argument Authority and Reason History and Logick For whatsoever any Artist or Divine hath said of the great use of the languages in discovering the true meaning of the Original Scriptures by the ancient Translations as well as the Originalls which I allow as much as they demand they must give me leave to observe that seeing all languages are certain Lawes of speaking which have the force of signifying by being delivered to posterity upon agreement of their Predeoessors all that helpe is duly ascribed to Tradition which we have from the Languages Indeed this is no Tradition of the Church no more then all History and Historicall truth concerning the times the places the persons mentioned in the Scripture concerning the Lawes the Customes the Fashions and orders practised by persons mentioned in the Scriptures in all particulars whereof the Scripture speaks which whether it be delivered by Christians or not Christians as far as the common reason of men alloweth or warranteth it for Historical truth is to be admitted into consequence in inquiring the meaning of the Scriptures and without it all pretense of Languages is pedantick and contemptible as that which gives the true reason to the Language of the Scripture whatsoever it import in vulgar use This helpe being applied to the Text of the Scripture it will be of consequence to confider the process of the discourse pursuing that which may appear to be intended not by any mans fancy but by those marks which cleared by the helps premised may appear to signifie it Which is the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures And whereas other passages of Scripture either are clearer of themselves or being made clearer by using the same helps may seem to argue the meaning of that which is questioned whereas other parts of Christianity resolved afore may serve as principles to inferre by consequence of reason the truth of that which remains in doubt not to be impured therefore to reason but to the truth from which reason argues as believed and not seen this also is no lesss the work of reason supposing the truth of the Scriptures But whereas there be two sorts of things questionable in Christianity and all that is questionable meerly in point of truth hath relation to and dependance upon the rule of faith as consequent to it or consistent with it if we will have it true or otherwise if false I acknowledge in the first place that nothing of this nature can be questionable further then as some Scripture the meaning whereof is not evident createth the doubt And therefore that the determination of the meaning of that Scripture is the determination of the truth questionable For seeing the truth of Gods nature and counsails which Christianity revealeth are things which no Christian can pretend to have known otherwise then by revelation from God and that we have evidence that whatsoever we have by Scripture is revealed but by the Tradition of the Church no further then all the Church agreeth in it all that wherein it agreeeth being supposed to be in the Scripture and much more then that It followeth that nothing can be affirmed as consequent to or consistent with that which the tradition of the Church containeth but by the Scripture and from the Scripture So that I willingly admit whatsoever is alleadged from divers sayings of the Fathers that whatsoever is not proved out of the Scriptures is as easily rejected as it is affirmed limiting the meaning of it as I have said But whatsoever there is Scripture produced to prove seeing we have prescribed that nothing can be admitted for the true meaning of any Scripture that is against the Catholick Tradition of the Church it behoveth that evidence be made that what is pretended to be true hath been taught in the Church so expresly as may inferre the allowance of it and therefore is not against the rule of Faith But this being cleared so manifest as it is that the Church hath not the priviledge of infallibility in any express act which is not justifiable from the universall
originall practice of the Church whither in prescribing what is to be believed what is to be professed or what is to be done So manifest must it remain that nothing can be resolved by plurality of votes of Ecclesiasticall Writers as to the point of truth For then were the priviledge of infallibility in the votes of those Writers which themselves disclaim from the substance of what they write And it is to say that what had no such priviledge when it was written if it have more Authors survive that hold it shall be and must be held infallible Which consequences being ridiculous it followeth that for the tryal of truth within the bounds aforesaid recourse must be had to the means premised And the effect of those means every dayes experience witnesseth For the obligation which all men think they have firmly to hold that which by these means they have all concluded from the Scriptures is the consequence of these principles in expounding the same Which obligation though sometimes imaginary in regard that between contradictory reasons the consequence may be equally firm on both sides yet that it cannot be otherwise he that believes the truth of Christianity must needs imagine For true principles truly used necessarily produce nothing but true consequences Which if it be so why should any question be made that the Church may and sometimes ought to proceed in determining the truth of things questionable upon occasion of the Scriptures concerning the rule of Christian faith or which is all one that the exercise of this power by the Church produceth in those that are of the Church an obligation of submitting to the same Indeed here be two obligations which sometimes may contradict one another and therefore whatsoever the matter of them be the effects of them cannot be contraries The use of the means to determine the meaning of the Scriptures produceth an obligation of holding that which followeth from it which obligation no man can have or ought to imagine he hath before the due use of such meanes whither his estate in the Church oblige him to use them or not But the visible determination of the Church obliges all that are of the Church not to scandalize the unity thereof by professing contrary to the same And to both these obligations the same man may be subject as the matter may be to wit as one that hath resolved the question upon true principles not to believe the contrary and as one of the Church that believes the Church faileth in that for which he is bound not to break the unity thereof not to professe against what the Church determineth For I am bold to say again that there is no society no communion in the world whether Civill Ecclesiasticall Military or whatsoever it be that can subsist unlesse we grant that the Act of superiour Power obligeth sometimes when it is ill used In the mean time I say not that this holds alwaies and in matters of whatsoever concernment nor do take upon me generally to resolve this no more then what is the mater of the rule of Faith which he that believes may be saved he that positively believes it not all cannot It shall be enough for me if I may give an opinion whether that which we complain of be of value to disoblige us to our superiours or not As concerning what is questioned amongst us whither it be of the rule of Faith or not But this I shall say that to justifie the use of this power towards God requireth not onely a perswasion of the truth competent to the weight of the point in question in those that determine for the Church but also a probable judgement that the determination which they shall make will be the meanes to reduce contrary opinions to that sense which they see so great Authority profess and injoyn For without doubt there can be no such means to dissolve the unity of the Church as a precipitate and immature determination of something that is become questionable For effectually to proceed to exercise Ecclesiasticall Communion upon terms contrary to that which hath been received afore is actually to dissolve the unity of the Church The ingagement to make good that which men shall have once done being the most powerful Witcheraft and Ligature in the world to blind them from seeing that which all men see besides themselves or at least from confessing to see that which they cannot but see But if we speak of things which concern the communion of the Church in those offices which God is to be served with by Christians or that tend to maintain the same besides the meaning and truth of the Scriptures there remains a further question what is or ought to be law to the Church and oblige them that are of the Church seeing that whatsoever is in the Scripture obligeth not the Church for Law though obliged to beleeve it for truth the resolution whereof will require evidence of the reason for which every thing was done by the Apostles for as it holds or not so the constitution grounded upon it is to hold either alwaies or onely as it holds And this reason must be evidenced by the Authority of the Church admitting that reason into force whither by express act or by silent practice When the Israelites are commanded to eat the Passeover in haste with their loins girt and their staves in their hands there is appearance enough that the intent of it was onely concerning that Passeover which first they celebrated in Egypt not for an order alwaies to continue because then the case required haste and because then the Angell passed over their houses upon the door-posts whereof the blood was commandded to be sprinkled that by that marke he might passe over them to smite the Egyptians For though Philo would have the Passeover to be celebrated at home and not at Jerusalem though perhaps onely by those of the dispersions those that dwelt in the Land of promise being all tied to resort to Jerusalem yet all that acknowledge the Talmud think it not lawfull to celebrate it but at Jerusalem contenting themselves with the Supper and abatng the Lambe as one of those sacrifices which the Law forbiddeth every where but before the Ark. But had not the practice of the Nation and the Authority of the Elders trusted by the Law to determine such matters appeared in the businesse our Lord who according to his own doctrine was subject to their constitutions had not had a rule for his proceeding So in the infancy of Christianity it is no marvail if the Christians at Jerusalem entertained daily communion even at board also among themselves and that they gave their estates to the maintenance of it not by any law of communion of goods but as the common necessity required For what could make more towards the advancement of Christianity And when at Corinth and in other Churches the communion was in use though not so frequent nor giving up their
Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
to provide for themselves such an order in the communion of Christianity as may stand with the Scriptures and the unity of the Church though without consent of the whole Church of the present time For it is evident that this disorder may be so great in the Laws of the Church as to make them uselesse and unserviceable not onely to the profession of the true faith or to the service of God for which the communion of the Church standeth but even to the unity of the Church it selfe which is the prime precept that all which the Church does ought to aim at It is evident also that this is the true cause which the reformation hath to dispute against the Church of Rome But this I say that though particular Churches must necessarily have their particular Lawes which are the differences which severall Churches observe in the exercise of the same Ordinances yet may not any particular Church make it selfe any Law which may tend to separation by disclaiming the unity of the whole Church or either expresly or by due construction denying the same This is done by abrogating Apostolicall Traditions as inconsistent with Christianity for the mater of them not because the reason and ground of them is ceased For they who disclaim the Authority of the Apostles cannot acknowledge the unity of the Church And they who make Apostolical Ordinances inconsistent with Christianity do necessarily disclaim the Authority of the Apostles The same is done by abrogating the constitution of the Church done by virtue of the Authority left it by the Apostles For to disclaim the Church in this Authority is to disclaim the Apostles that left it And though this Authority may be so abused that particular Churches that is to say parts of the whole Church may thereby be authorized yea obliged to provide for themselves without the consent of the whole yet not against the authority of the whole that is to say of the Apostles from whence it proceedeth Nor is every abuse thereof a cause sufficient to warrant the scandals that such proceedings necessarily produce And this shall be enough for me to have said in this place Having I suppose established those principles by the right application whereof he that can make it may judge what is the true plea whereby that separation which the reformation hath occasioned must either be justified or be thought unjustifiable From that which hath been said the difference between Heresie and Schisme and the true nature of both crimes in opposition to Christianity may and ought to be inferred in this place because it ought not to be forgotten which ought daily to be lamented that at the beginning of the troubles it was questioned in the Lords House whether there were any such crimes or not or whether they were onely bug-bares to scare Children with and that hereupon every man sees England over-run with both The word Heresie signifies nothing but Choice and therefore the signification of it is sometimes indifferent importing no more then a way of professing and living which a man voluntarily chuseth as S. Paul useth it when he saith That he lived according to the most exact Heresie of the Iewes Religion a Pharisee Act. XXVI 5. For it is known that besides the necessary profession of the Jews Law there were three sects which no man by being a Jew was obliged to but by his own free choice the Pharisees the Sadduces and the Essenes which being all maintained by the Law as it was then used the common name of them cannot signifie any crime among them to whom S. Paul then spoke whatsoever we believe of the Sadduces And thus it sounds among them who use it to signifie the Sects of the Grecian Philosophers allowed by those who imbraced them not As in the Title or Lucians discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because it is too ordinary for men of their own choice to depart from the rule to which they are or ought to stand obliged thereupon the word is most part used to signifie the free choice of a rule of living contrary to that rule which they stood obliged to before In which sense Adam is called by Tertullian the first Heretick as he that first departed from the will of God to live according to his own Supposing now that Christianity obliges both to the rule of faith and to the society of the Church by virtue of that rule because the beliefe of the Catholick Church is part of it as hath been declared afore it is manifest that whosoever dis-believes any part of that rule the beliefe whereof is the condition upon which a man becomes a Christian and thereby forfeits his interest in those promises which God hath made to Christians doth or may either lead others or follow in living according to that belief which he chooseth whether professing it as a Christian ought to profess his Christianity or not And in this sense it seems to be used by S. Paul when he sayes Titus III. 10. 11. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Knowing that such a one is turned aside and sinneth being condemned by himselfe For when he speaks of admonishing them he signifies that he speaks not of such as had actually departed from the communion of the Church but sheltred themselves under the common profession of Christians doing every thing as they did that by such means they might inveigle such as suspected nothing to admit their infusions which I showed before to have been the fashion of the Gnosticks whose Doctrines the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 1. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pestilent Heresies And whom S. Paul must needs speak of in this place because there were no other on foot so as to be mentioned by their writings Such a one then the Apostle saith is condemned by himselfe in the same sense as the Councills and Chuch-Writers say of one in the same case in seipsum sententiam dixit He hath given sentence against himselfe because by refusing the second admonition he hath declared himselfe obstinate in that which the common Christianity maketh inconsistent with the communion of the Church And this more proper to the circumstance of this text then S. Jeroms interpretation of those that condemn themselves to be put out of the Church by voluntarily leaving the communion of it though that also is not farre from truth concerning them who are properly signified by the generall name of Hereticks For it is very evident that when S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XI 17. There must be Heresies among you his meaning is onely of such factions as tended to Schism whereof he admonisheth them 1 Cor. I. 10. That there be Schisms among them Now it is manifest how much difference there is between him who holdeth something contrary to the faith and yet departeth not from the communion of the Church and him that departeth from the commnion of the Church though holding nothing contrary to the substance of
for God which are sacrificing burning incense pouring out drink-offerings and adoration But others there are by doing which a man cannot be concluded to worship any thing but God till he do it in that way and fashion as is one by those that professe to worship it for God If it be said that these are Jews which allow Traditions but that there is another sort of Jews called Scripturaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which admit nothing but the leter of the Scriptures I answer that those also who admit onely the Text of Scripture and pretend to determine all controversies about the Law by consequences to be drawn from it could never come to agreement among themselves what consequence should take place and what not did they not acknowledge some publick persons whose determinations the whole body of them submitteth to the consequences which they derive their observations by from the leter of the Law being so ridiculously insufficient that they could not satisfie the meanest understandings otherwise as may appear by those which the Talmudists alledge for their constitutions Which being no lesse ridiculous then the traditions which they alledge incredible would be both to no effect did not the publick power of the Nation which while the Law stood was of force by it but now it is void ought to cease put all pretenses beyond dispute And for that which is alledged out of the Apocalyps which in sound of words seems to import some such thing concerning the vvhole book of the Scriptures as these Texts of Moses import concerning the Lavv I shall desire the understanding Reader but to consider that protestation vvhereby Irenaeus conjures all that should copy his Book to collate it vvell vvith the Original that they might be sure neither to adde to it nor take from it as Eusebius relateth out of his Book de Ogdoade against the Valentinians Eccl. First V. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I adjure thee that shalt copy out this Book by our Lord â—esus Christ and by his glorious presence when he comes to judge the quick and dead to collate what thou hast transcribed and correct it by this Copy whence thou hast transcribed it with care and likewise to transcribe this adsuration and puâ—â—it in the Copy Setting aside this adjuration what is the difference between S. Iohns charge and the matter of it And finding the words of S. Iohn to import neither more nor lesse to tell me what he thinks of this argument S. Iohn protesteth in the conclusion of his Revelation that who so shall adde any thing to the true and authentick Copy of these Prophesies to him shall be added the plagues written it who so taketh from it from him shall be taken his share in the Book of life and the holy City and the good things written in that Book Therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are contained in the Scriptures clearly to all understandings But strain the consequence of this Text beyond the words of it which concern onely the words of the prophesie of this Book that is the Apocalyps if you please and take it for a seal to the whole Bible forbidding to take any thing from or to adde any thing to it for some of the Ancients have so argued from it shall he that addeth the true sense to or taketh false glosses from the Bible by force of that evidence which the Tradition of the Church createth be thought therefore to adde to the Word of God or to take from it Then did God provide that his own Law should be violated by his own Law when having forbidden to adde or to take from Moses Law he provided a power to limit or to extend both the sense and practise of it and that under pain of death to all that refractarily should resist it Now I demand of them that shall alledge S. Pauls Anathema against him that should preach any other Gospel then what he had preached to the Galatians against the position that I maintain whether he do believe that the Galatians had then the New Testament consisting of the four Gospels and other Apostolicall Scriptures or whether he can maintain that they had any part of it For if this cannot as is evident that it cannot be affirmed then of necessity S. Paul speaks of the Gospel not as we have it written in the Books of the New Testament but as they had received it from the preaching of S. Paul by word of mouth which being common to all Christians unlesse we question whether all the Apostles preached the same Gospell cannot be thought to destroy either the being of the Catholick Church or the saith which it supposeth or the power wherein it consisteth and the Authority of those acts which have voluntarily proceeded from it As for the Beraeans that examined even the doctrine of S. Paul by the Scriptures is it a wonder that they should not take S. Paul for an Apostle of Jesus Christ upon his own word but should demand of him to show by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ that so they might be induced to believe him sent to preach the Gospel of Christ Therefore when they were become Christians we must believe that they understood themselves and S. Paul better then to call his doctrine under examinarion or to dispute with him about the meaning of the Scriptures which he should alledge which our illuminati which take this for an argument must consequently do because they value not in S. Paul the commission of an Apostle but the presumption they have that the Holy Ghost moved him to write the Scriptures which he hath left us though they have nothing to alledge for it but the general commission of an Apostle To the words of the Evangelist Ioh. XX. 30. 31. I answer that he speaks onely of his own Gospel And that the things written in that Gospel are sufficient to induce a man to believe that believing he may have life But that is not sufficient to inferre that therefore all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians are clearly expressed either in S. Iohns Gospel or in the whole Scripture because he that is induced by the things there written to belive the truth of Christianity may seek further instruction in the substance thereof that he may attain unto life by imbracing the same So S. Iohn saith not that a man hath life by believing what is there but what by knowing it he cometh to believe As for those words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 16. 17. I confidently believe that S. Paul speaketh onely of the Books of the Old Testament then before the writings of the Apostles were gathered into that body which now is the New Testament known by the name of the Scriptures Being well assured that no evidence can be made to the contrary because of those alone it could be demanded that they should bear witnesse to that which the Apostles preached and taught There being no
knowledge as to think himselfe fit to recall the Lawes of his Country and give new Laws to the Church of God in it is not ashamed to admit that the reason why the Idolatries of Israelites were so odious to God was because he had not commanded them by the Scriptures As if God had never forbade them to worship Idols by the Scriptures For otherwise he could not have inferred by the words of the Prophet that a Christian ought to do nothing without a Text of Scripture to warrant it much lesse to admit any Law of the Church without such evidence Which had it been granted him with power to give the Church such Laws he could not have proceeded without demanding this exception that those which Cartwright should make without any such warrant might be counted godly and religious but these which the Church superstitious CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jews Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiors and the Pillar of truth inferre it not IT will not be more difficult to show how the true sense of all those Scriptures which are alleadged towards the infallibility of the Church concurs to make good the terms upon which I have resolved the dispute in hand For having showed that the Law of Moses was given the Jews for the condition of holding the land of promise they ruling as well their civil communion as the service they tendred to God according to it I will demand but one thing more from the general experience of all civill people which is this That no form of Laws can be propounded to any community of men whatsoever so as to serve it without further determining and limiting of such things as time and the occurrences of time shall discover to be undetermined by that Law and therefore questionable So that Moses Law though given by God who foresaw whatsoever could become questionable concerning the mater of his Law yet because given for the civil Law of the people must needs be given liable to want such limitations as the occurrences of time should make requisite Neither can the truth hereof be better evidenced then by showing the course which God by the Law hath taken for the ending of all such disputes arising upon the Law I do therefore not onely grant but insist upon this that the power established by the law of Deut. XVII 8 -12 extendeth to all maner of debates arising upon occasion of any recept of Moses Law and to the determining of them by limiting those things which the leter of the Law had not expressed I do likewise grant that death is allotted for a penalty to whosoever should not conform to any such determination and the practice of the Law according to it And I do find so much reason for it that I do not understand how possibly that people should subsist and by consequence the Law which made them that people in practice of it without such a provision as this An opinion of the intent and meaning of God in the practice of any precept being sufficient to divide that people into parties not to be reconciled but by the voice of God either upon the occasion or by the Law warranting the sentence of those whom he authorizeth to declare what he requireth of his people Setting aside for the present to dispute whether it be the Priests alone or the Priests with the chiefe of the People in whom this Power is vested by the Law as for the present I dispute not who the persons are in whom the power of Church maters rests in behalf of the Church it is plainly by this Law a capitall crime to teach and do contrary to what the publick Power of that People should determine concerning the intent and practice of any Precept of that Law And therefore accordingly I grant insist that in the new Israel of God according to the Spirit which is the Church of Christ there is and ought to be a Power of putting out of the fellowship of the same any man that shall not stand to the resolution which legally is able to conclude it For without such a Power it cannot be imagined how the unity thereof should subsist seeing that there can be no community in which debates shall not arise about those things wherein they communicate I grant further and insist that he who is justly put out of the Church though meerly for violating the unity thereof by disobeying that just order which unites it is thereby condemned to the death of the world to come As he that teaches and does contrary to the sentence of that power that concludes the Synagogue is put out of this Notwithstanding as many other crimes besides this are capitall by the law of Moses so there be many other causes both of faith and of life by which a man forfeits his interest both in the world to come and in the communion of the Church But if any man argue that because a man forfeits the Communion of the Church by disobeying the determination thereof therefore all the determinations thereof are infallibly true and obliging by virtue of Gods Law I shall deny the consequence by virtue of that very Law of Deut. XVII 8 -12 upon which this Argument is grounded For whereas it makes disobedience a capital crime there are other Laws that suppose a breach of the Law even in following the determinations of that power which it establisheth At least if we admit the practice of those Jews that follow the Talmud in those precepts of Levit. VI. 13 -21 Numb XV. 21 -26 which indeed cannot reasonably be otherwise understood How should the Congregation offer sacrifices to expiate that ignorance wherein all were involved but as those that had power to make wrong determinations should expiate that ignorance which the Congregation by following had incursed Neither saith our Lord any lesse in the Gospel though in a mater of greater consequence when having condemned them that transgressed Gods commandment for the Tradition of their Predecessors Mat. XV. 5-10 Mar. VII 8-12 neverthelesse he commands them to observe and do all such things as the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair should command Mat. XXIII 2. to wit because the authority of Moses his Chair presupposed the Law of God but extended not to nullifie any part of it In like maner the authority of the Church presupposing the truth of Christianity the profession whereof makes Christians the Body whereof is the Church It is not possible that it should reach so farre as to warrant any man to believe that which those grounds upon which the truth of Christianity stands cannot evidence to be true I say not that the Church cannot determine what shall be taught and received in such disputes as
will divide the Church unlesse an end be put But I say that the Authority of the Church can be no reason obliging or warranting to believe that for truth which cannot be reasonably deduced from the motives of our common faith onely it shall be a reason obliging and warranting to keep the peace of the Church by not scandalizing such determinations thereof as are not destructive to the common faith Much more where the faith is not concerned onely the question is of determining the circumstances of those actions wherein the Communion of the Church is exercised which neither our Lord nor his Apostles have determined shall the disobeying of such determinations be the violating of that unity which all Christians professe that God hath ordained in his Church And now we have an easie account to give how the Prophets Haggai and Malachi send the Israelites to the Priest for resolution in those things which the practice of that people determined to belong to their office to resolve Because it cannot be doubted that their resolutions depended upon upon the acts of that authority which concluded that people by the Law aforesaid of Deut. XVII 8 -12 Which if not infallible and yet authorized by God to warrant the proceedings of his people it will be no marvail if those that act in dependance on them be authorized to warrant the people though further from being infallible To come now to those things that are alleadged to be said of the Apostles and of the Church having already limited the power of the Church not to extend to the faith of Christianity which it presupposeth it will be easie to distinguish it from the power of the Apostles Which though it presuppose the truth of Christianity preached by our Lord as that which they are imployed to introduce and establishâ— yet in order of nature and reason is before the very being of the Church as serving to evidence any truth of the Gospel to them that believe being convicted that they came from God to move them to believe For how can they stand obliged to believe the truth of our common Christianity to be that which God sent our Lord Christ to preach but by standing convict that the Apostles were sent by him to move them to accept of it and thereupon inabled with means to evidence this Commission and trust whereupon the world may safely repose themselves upon the credit of them whose act God owns by the witnesse he yields them for his own The true reason and ground upon which no act of theirs whither by word or writing is refusable by the Church Upon which the truth of things determined by their writings is no more determinable by the Church because the meaning of their words which is the truth sought for is in the words from the time they are said And is it then an unreasonable demand that their Charter He that heareth you heareth me extending to all that falls under their office should not be thought to descend upon the Church indefinitely but according to such limitations as the constitution thereof determineth That is to say not to the effect of creating faith but of preserving peace and unity in the Communion of the Church Not prejudicing neverthelesse that force of evidencing the truth of Christianity and the meaning of the Apostles writings which I have showed to be in the testimony of the Church not by any authority it hath from God but from that conviction which the testimony of such a body of men inferreth I shall not therefore deny that he who heareth or refuseth their successors heareth and refuseth God if that which they would be heard in be within the bounds of that power which God hath assigned them but is not the same that he assigned the Apostles But I shall utterly deny that it is by virtue of these words which were spoken by our Lord at such time as he had not declared whither they should have successors or not For there is very great appearance that they themselves after this expected to see the worlds end and the coming of Christ When the Apostles Mat. XXVI 3. inquire of our Lord When shall these things come to passe And what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the worlds end Though our Lord by this answer distinguisheth the time of the destruction of Jerusalem from the end of the world yet by the question there is no appearance that the Apostles did so distinguish before his answer And when his answer contains That this generation shall not be over till all these things come to passe and that not only after he had declared the destruction of Jerusalem but his coming and the end of the world Mat. XXIV 14 -23-29-34 it appeareth that those things which he declares shall forerun the worlds end were to begin before that generation were out when to end being not thought sit then to be said If this interpretation of Grotius which makes good the leter best suffer contradiction yet is it evident by S. Pauls Epistles 1 Cor. XV. 51 52. 2 Cor. V. 11-44 2 Thes IV. 15. 17. that he was not certificed but that the coming of Christ to judgement should be during his time In which S. Iohn by the Apocalypse was more fully informed If these things be true the obedience due to the Apostles successors cannot stand by virtue of this command given when it was not declared whither they were to have successors or not But by those Scriptures whereby it may appear so farre as in due place it shall appear whither or no and upon what terms the Apostles left their Authority with successors which when it appears then by consequence of reason it will be inferred from these words that who hears or refuses them hears or refuses God by whom the Apostles were inabled to leave such part of their power with successors Neither will it be strange that I allow not any Councill in which never so much of the authority of the present Church is united to say in the same sense and to the same effect as the Synode of the Apostles at Jerusalem It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Though I allow the overt act of their assembling to be a legall presumption that their acts are the acts of the Holy Ghost so farre as they appear not to transgresse those bounds upon which the assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised the Church For as for the Apostles I have showed before that they had the Holy Ghost given them not onely to preserve them in the truth of the common profession of Christians but to reveal unto them the true sense of the old Scriptures according to the Gospell which they preached though that grace was common to many more besides the Apostles not to all Christians upon which depended the resolution of the point then in debate Besides I do not intend to depart from that observation which I have made in another place that we find
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
the second of the LXX whose privildges are not to be communicated to any authority to be preserved in the Church afterwards But the importance of these exhortations is not such as can inferre any imagination of infallibility in those whom they are exhorted to follow For they that know the bounds of that Power which the Apostles had trusted with the Governours of particular Churches presupposing the Christianity and Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which themselves had delivered may safely be exhorted to acknowledge them to esteem them above measure in love to obey them and to give way to them remembring those from whom they had first received Christianity from whom they had received these instructions as well as their then Rulers because they had long before received and yielded obedience to those things which we except from the obedience of present Rulers as presupposed to any power they can challenge As for the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 15. I confess they containe a very just and full attribute of the Church and a Title serving to justifie all the right I challenge for it For if the Church be the House of the living God then is it by Gods founding and appointment a Body consisting of all members of the true Church wherein God dwells as of old in the Temple at Jerusalem as he dwells in every Christian as he dwelt in the Tabernacle and Campe of the Israelites And if it be the Pillar that sustains the truth then must it have wherewith to maintain it beside the truth it selfe which is the Scriptures And what what can that be but the testimony of it selfe as a body and fellowship of men onely which securing it selfe that is succession by the evidence made to the Predecessors of the same body maintains the truth once committed to the trust of it not onely by writing but also by practice But what is this to the gift of Infallibility for suppose the Church by the foundation of it inabled to maintain both the truth and the sufficience of the motives of faith against Infidels and also the rule of faith against Hereticks by the evidence which it maketh that they are received What is this to the creating of faith by decreeing that which before it was decreed was not the object of faith but upon such decree obligeth all faithful to believe Surely the Church cannot be the Pillar that sustains any faith but that which is laid upon it as received from the beginning not that which it layeth upon the foundation of faith Here I will desire the Reader to peruse these words of S. Basil Epist LXII speaking of the Bishop of Neo caesarea deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is a man gone that of all men of his time most evidently excelled in all and every of those good things that belong to men The stay of his Country the ornament of the Church the Pillar that sustained the truth For if a particular Prelate may duly be qualified as well the Pillar that supporteth the truth as the prop of his Country Well may the Church be thought capable of the same stile though it create no matter of faith by decreeing but onely preserve that which it hath received by defending and maintaining it CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the Sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the terms which they use The limitation of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith IT is now time having showed the meaning of those Scriptures which are alleged for both extremes which I avoid to do the like for some of those sayings of the Fathers which are pleaded to the same purpose This abridgment cannot consider all Therefore I will not multiply those which speak to one and the same purpose Nor marshal them according to the mater which they speak to Finding them speak to any branch of those extremes which I decline I will put them down as they come S. Augustine again de Doctr. Christianâ II. 6. for one place you had afore Magnifice salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ità Scripturas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus fastidia detergeret Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur Gallantly as well as wholesomly hath the Holy Ghost so tempered the Scriptures as to satisfie hunger by those places that are plain by those that are obscure to wipe of queasiness For there is scarce any thing digged out of those dark places that is not found most manifestly said elsewhere Epist III. Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum ut in eis quotidie proficerem si eas solas ab ineunte pueritiâ usque ad decrepitam senectutem maximo otio summo studio meliore ingenio conarer addiscere Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tant â in eis perveniatur difficultate Sed cùm ibi quisque fidem tenuerit sine quâ rectè pieque non vivitur tam multa tamque multis mysteriorum umbraculis opaca intelligenda proficientibus restant So great is the depth of the Writings of Christianity that I should profit in them continually if I should indeavor to learn them onely at very great leasure with most earnest study having a better wit from the beginning of my nonage till decrepit old age Not as if it were so hard to attain to that which is necessary in them But when a man hath attained the Faith without which there is no good and godly living there remain so many things to be understood and so darkly shadowed with manifold mysteries Clemens Protreptico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear yee then that are farre off hear yee that are near hand The word is not hid from any It is a common light it shineth upon all men There are no Cimmerians in the Word As some said then that there were in the world that had no Sun Irenaeus II. 46. Vniversae Scripturae Propheticae Apostolicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt All the Scriptures both of the Prophets and Apostles are open and without ambiguity and may be heard or understood alike of all III. 15. Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta firma nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito alia verò in manifesto docent um The doctrine of the Apostles is clear and firm and conceals nothing As not teaching one thing in secret and another openly Origen contra Celsum VII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vnlgar after their entrance made may easily study to apprehend even the deeper notions that are hid in the Scriptures For it is manifest to any man that reads them that they may have much deeper sense than that which straight appears in them Which becomes
I. 1. Theodoret in Levit. Quaest IX Theophilus II. Paschali S. Jerome in Psal XCVIII Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare ex Scripturis Sanctis Whatsoever wee say wee are to prove out of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in Mat. XXIII in Aggaei I. Origen in Mat. Tract XXIII That wee are to silence gain-sayers by the Scriptures as our Lord did the Sadduces Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem ostendit facta I adore the fulness of the Scripture which showes mee both the Maker and what hee made saith Tertulliane contra Hermog cap. XXII S. Austine de peccat meritis remiss II. 36. Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum claerissima autorit as esset si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset I believe there would be found some clear authority of the Word of God for this the original of mans soul if a man could not be ignorant of it without losse of the salvation that is promised In fine seeing it is acknowledged that the Scripture is a Rule to our Faith on all hands the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. III. Hom. XII is not refusable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule is not capable of adding to or taking from it For so it looseth being a Rule For the same reason S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemns all that is done without Scripture On the other side in the next place a greater thing cannot be said for the Church than that which Tertul. contra Marc. IV. 2. S. ser Ep. LXXXIX S. Aust cont Faust XXVIII 4. have said that S. Pauls authority depended upon the allowance of the Apostles at Jerusalem Tertul. Denique ut cum auâ—oâ—ibus contuâ—â—t convenit de regulâ Fidei dextras miscuere In a word as som as hee had conferred with men in authority and agreed about the Rule of Faith they shook hands S. Jer. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangolii nisi Petri caeterorum Apostolorum qui cum eo erant fuisset sententia roboratum Showing that hee had not assurance to preach the Gospel had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter and the rest of the Apostles that were with him S. Austine That the Church would not have believed at all had not this been done Among the sentences of the Fathers which make S. Peter the rock on which the Church is built the words of S. Austine contra partem Donati are of most appearance Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae This Church of Rome is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not S. Jerome is alleged hereupon consulting Damasus then Pope in maters of Faith as tied to stand to his sentence Epist LVII and Apolog. contra Rufinum Scito Romanam fidem Apostolicâ voce landatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere Etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Petri authoritate munitum non posse â—â—utari Know that the Faith of Rome commended by the voice of the Apostle is not liable to such tricks Though an Angel preach otherwise than once was preached that being fortified by the authority of S. Peter it cannot be changed The saying of S. Cyprian is notorious Non aliunde haereses orta sunt aut nata schismata nisi indè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Saeerdos ad tempus Judex Christi vice cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina fraternit as obtemperaret universa nemo adversùm Sacerdotum Collegium quicqam moveret nemo discidio unit atis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet Heresies spring and Schisms arise from no cause but this That the Priest of God is not obeyed that men think not that there is one Priest in the Church one Judg in Christs stead for the time Whom if the whole Brother-hood did obey as God teacheth no man would move any thing against the College of Priests or tear the Church with a rent in the Vnity of it The authority which the Church giveth to the Scripture is again testified by S. Austine contra Epist fundamenti cap. V. Cui libro necesse est me credere si credo Evangelio Quum utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendet authoritas Which book of the Acts I must needs believe if I believe the Gospel Catholick authority alike commending to mee both Scriptures To the same purpose contra Faustum XI 2. XIII 5. XXII 19. XVIII 7. XXVIII 2. XXXIII ult Therefore hee warns him that reads the Scriptures to preferr those books which all Churches receive before those which onely some And of them those which more and greater Churches receive before those which fewer and lesse So that if more receive some and greater others though the case hee thinks doth not fall out the authority of them must be the same And contra Cresconium II. 31. Neque enim sine causâ tam salubri vigilantiâ Canon Ecclesiasticum constitutus est ad quem certi Prophetarum Apostoloruus libri pertineant quos omnino judicare non audoamus For neither was the Rule of the Church settled with such wholesom vigilance without cause to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles might belong which wee should dare on any terms to censure Where manifestly hee ascribeth the difference between Canonical Scripture and that which is not to an act of the Church settling the same Of the Power of the Church to decide Controversies of Faith all the Records of the Church if that will serve the turn do bear plentifull witnesse But the evidence for the gift of Infallibility from them seems to consist in this consequence That otherwise there would be no end of Controversies neither should God have provided sufficiently for his Church S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. Quisquis falli met uit huyus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Scriptura sacra demonstrat Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question concerning Rebaptizing let him consult the Church about it which the Holy Scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity S. Bernard Epist CXC ad Innoc. II. Papam Opertet ad vestrum referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque scandala emergentia in regno Dei ac praesertim quae de fide contingunt Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum All dangers and scandals that appear in the kingdome of God are to be referred to your Apostleship For I conceive it sitting that the decaies of the Faith should there especially be repaired where the Faith is not subject to fail As concerning the mater of Traditions wee are not to forget Irenaeus III. 2 3 4. where hee showes that the Gnosticks scorning both Scripture and Tradition as coming from those that knew not Gods minde
as they pretended to do thence calling themselves Gnosticks may be convinced by that evidence which the consent of all Churches in the same Faith tenders common sense for the Tradition of the Apostles Which saith hee wee must have stuck to had they left us nought in writing as those Christians then did which had not the use of leters Epiphanius Haer. LXI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Gods words do not need allegory but are to be understood as they are But they need consideration to know the force of each mater Tradition also is to be used For all is not to be had from Gods Sriptures For the Holy Apostles delivered some things in writing others by Tradition as the Apostle saith So Haer. LV. LXXV S. Jerome advers Lucif Multa quae per Traditionem in Ecclesiis observantur auctoritatem sibi scriptae Legis usurpà runt Orthod Non quidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiasticam consuetudinem Sed quale est ut Leges Ecclesiae ad haeresim transferas Many things that are observed in the Churches by Tradition have usurped to themselves the authority of written Law The Orthodox party answers I deny not the custome of the Church to be such But what a business is it that you transform the Lawes of the Church into Heresie S. Austine Epist CXVIII Illa autem quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe servantur dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ saluberrima auctoritas commendata atque statuta retineri But those things which wee observe though not written but delivered being observed all over the world wee are given to understand that they are held as recommended and setled either by the Apostles themselves or by General Councils the authority whereof is very wholesom in the Church To the same purpose de Bapt. contra Donat. II 7. IV. 6 24. V. 23. de Vnitate Ecclesiae XIX contra Cresconiam I. 31 32 33. The supposed Dionysius the Areopagite Eccles Hierarchiae cap. I. mentioneth that instruction which the Apostles delivered without writing as a witnesse of the Church though not as a Scholar of the Apostles And Eusebius de demonstr Evang. I. 8. acknowledgeth written Lawes of the Apostles Concilium Gangrense in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And wee desire in summe that all things delivered by the Scriptures of God and the Traditions of the Apostles be observed in the Church And Greg. Nazianzene Orat. I. advers Jul. referrs those Ordinances which I quoted out of him afore to the Apostles as Authors of them Some sayings of the Fathers are also alleged to show that they held the Scriptures obscure Origen in Levit. Hom. V. allegorizeth the Law of burning some part of the peace-offerings to signifie that some things in the Scriptures are reserved to Gods knowledg least wee understand them otherwise than truth requires The same saith Irenaeus II. 47. even in the world to come that man may alwayes learn but God alwayes teach the maters of God S. Chrysostome in Joan. Hom. XL. observes that our Lord bids Search the Scriptures By digging as for mines or treasure So if they may be understood with searching yet it followeth not that every one is able to take that course in searching them that is requisite And Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIV Ergò non sunt Scriptnrae clausae Sed obscurae quidem ut cum labore inveniantur non autem clausae ut nullo modo inveniantur Therefore the Scriptures are not shut Dark indeed they are so that they are found with pains But not shut so as by no means to be found Adding that as it is for the praise of them that finde them that they sought so for the condemnation of them that seek not that they understand them not S. Jerome ad Algasiam Quaest VIII Omnis Epistola ad Romanos miris obscuritatibus involuta est The whole Epistle to the Romanes is involved with marvellous darkness Epist ad Paulinum Hoc autem velamen non solùm in facie Moysi sed in Evangelistis Apostolis positum est This vail is not onely in Moses face but upon the Evangelists and Apostles And Nisi aperta fuerint universa quae scripta sunt ab eo qui habet clavem David qui aperit nemo claudit qui claudit nemo aperit nullo alio reserante pandentur Unless all things that are written be opened by him who hath the Key of David who opens and no man shuts who shuts and no man opens no man else will unlock and lay them forth Before him Origen in Exodum Hom. XII is afraid that the Evangelists and Apostles as well as the Prophets will prove not onely vailed but sealed to us as the Prophet saith unlesse wee both study and pray that the Lamb of the Tribe of Juda may open us the Seals of it Here I will advise the parties to consider how they can advantage themselves by those sayings of the Fathers which contain not the terms of that position which they do nothing unlesse they inforce Allege they what they can allege out of the Fathers to show that they acknowledg the Scriptures both sufficient and perspicuous I shall not be troubled at it but shall willingly concurr to acknowledg the same I acknowledg the Scriptures to be an Instrument of God though a Moral Instrument And I shall have a care not to acknowledg that God ever provided or used au Instrument that would not serve his turn Instrumentum Vetus Novum is a term in every mans mouth to signifie the Old and New Testament But there are Natural Instruments and there are Moral Instruments I say not that there is no third kind of Instruments for it may be there are Artificial Instruments of a several nature from both but my present purâ—ose obliges mee not to consider that difference When the substance or frame of the Instrument inables it to serve him that imployes it well may it be called a Natural Instrument as the parts of mans body or other creatures which execute the operations of the soul When neither the substance nor frame of the thing which that substance produces concurrs to the work to the which it is Instrumental but it is done meerly by the consent of mans will the reason is the same of Gods will if it be an Instrument between man and God then is it great reason why it should be called a Moral Instrument because the force of it lyes in the maners of those who use it to testifie those acts which they do not mean to transgresse Such as all civil records are in regard of the effect of those contracts or deeds which they come to witnesse The Old and New Testament are the records of two several Treaties or Contracts if you please that have passed between God and Man And therefore authentick because the writings of those who contracted those Treaties But does
every Instrument of a contract contain every thing that is in force by the said contract Surely it is a thing so difficult to contain in writing every thing that a contract intends that many times if witnesses were not alive other whiles if general Lawes did not determine the intent of words in fine if there were nothing to help the tenor of such Instruments things contracted would hardly sort to effect Consider now what is alleged on the other side how resolutely how generally the Tradition both of the Rule of Faith and of Lawes to the Church is acknowledged even by those witnesses whose sayings are alleged to argue the sufficience perfection and evidence of the Scriptures Is it civil is it reasonable to say that the Writers of the Christian Church make it their businesse to contradict themselves which no Scholar will admit either Infidels Pagans Jewes Mahumetans or Hereticks to do Is it not easie to save them from contradicting themselves by saying that Tradition of Faith containeth nothing that is not in the Scriptures but limits the meaning of that which they contain Tradition of Lawes may contain that which is not in the Scriptures for the species of fact but is derived from the Scripture for the authority from whence it proceeds Or is it possible by any other means reasonably to save them from contradicting themselves These generals premised freely may wee make our approaches to the particulars and by considering the circumstance of the places where they lye make our selves consident to finde some limitation restraining the generality of their words to make them agree as well with my position as with themselves For example Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI Irenaeus II. 46. III. 15. Athanasius Dispcum Ario say all is clear in the Scriptures Meaning that the sense of the Church is clearly the sense of the Scriptures in the points questioned But not to them who exclude that Tradition which themselves include and presuppose Observe again that the perspicuity of the Scriptures is not limited to things necessary to salvation in all that hath been alleged but once in S. Austine Epist III. and observe withall that the knowledg of things necessary proceeds upon supposition of the Rule of Faith acknowledged and received from the Church in the Catechizing of those that were baptized Not determined by every ones sense of the Scriptures It is therefore easily granted that the Scriptures were made for all sorts of people that they might profit by them Alwaies provided that they bring with them the Faith of the Catholick Church for the Rule within the bounds whereof they may profit by reading them otherwise they may and they may not And therefore those sayings which were alleged to prove them obscure convincing that they are not clear to all understandings because they require study and search and digging do necessarily leave him that comes without his Rule not onely in doubt of finding the truth but in danger of taking error for it Upon the like supposition S. Austine affirms de Vtilitate credendi VI. that any man may finde enough in the Old Testament that seeks as he ought For to seek humbly and devoutely is the same thing for him that is no Christian For the Manichees to whom S. Austine recommends the Old Testament in this place were Christians no further than the name as it is for him that is a Christian to seek like a Christian that is having before his eyes the Faith of the Church And this is that which S. Austine means that hee who is no Christian so seeking may finde enough to make him a Christian That is as much as hee is to expect from the Old Testament And this supposition is exprest by Origen contra Celsum VII when hee sayes that the unlearned may study the Scriptures with profit after their entrance made For this entrance is the Rule of Faith which they were taught when they were baptized And the Catechism of that time containing as well the motives as the mater of Faith appears to the unlearned the way into the deep that is the mystical sense of the Scripture Upon the same terms may wee proceed to grant all that is alleged to show that which is not contained in the Scriptures not to be receivable in point of Christian truth For having showed that the Rule of Faith is wholly contained in the Scriptures And nothing contained in the records of Church Writers to be unquestionable but the Rule and Tradition of Faith Whatsoever further intelligence and information can be pretended either tending to establish the same or by consequence of reason to flow from it if it cannot be pretended to come from Tradition because there is no Tradition of the Church concerning that wherein the Church agrees not either it must come from the Scripture or by the like revelation as the Scriptures which no Church Writer pretends to have For as for that which by consequence of reason is derived from those things which the Scripture expresseth Seeing the words of the Scripture is not the word of God but the sense and meaning of them it were a thing very impertinent to question whether or no that be contained in the Scripture which the true sense of the Scripture by due consequence of argument imports But if the question be of Lawes delivered the Church by the Apostles having showed that there may sufficient evidence be made of such though not recorded in the Scriptures there can no presumption be made being not found in the Scriptures that therefore a Law was not first brought into the Church by the Apostles And yet it remains grounded upon the Scriptures in point of righâ— because the authority by which it was brought into the Church is either established or attested by the Scriptures Mater of fact being competently evidenced by other historical truth besides And upon these terms wee may proceed to acknowledg the goodness of an argument drawn negatively from the Scriptures that is to say inferring this is not in the Scriptures therefore not true Doth my position then oblige mee to deny Irenaeus affirming III. that the Apostles writ the same that they preached Or S. Austine in Psalmum XXI de Vnitate Ecclesiae cap. V. and Optatus V. tying the Donatists to be tried by the Scriptures Both parties pretending to be children of God are to be tryed by their Fathers Will that is by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament But if there shall fall out any difference about the intent of their Fathers Will the meaning of the Old and New Testament shall I think that is said in vain which is alleged on the other side out of the same S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. that if a man would not erre in that point hee is to advise with the Church which the Scripture evidenceth For the question being about the rebaptizing of Hereticks that is about a Law of the Church if you will have S. Austine agree with S. Austine
it must be upon the terms of my position the practice of the Church giving bounds to the sense of the Scripture I can therefore safely agree with the Constitutions of the Apostles with S. Cyprian and Leo and whosoever else teaches that it is not safe for the people to assure their consciences upon the credit of their Pastors But it is because I suppose the Unity of the Church provided by God for a ground upon which the people may reasonably presume when they are to adhere to their Pastors when not To wit when they are owned not when they are disowned by the Unity of the Church For though this provision becomes uneffectual when this Unity is dissolved yet ought not that to be an argument that the goodnesse of God never made that provision which the malice of man may defeat But that whosoever concurrs to maintain the division concurrs to defeat that provision which God hath made As safely do I agree with all them who agree that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures For if it belong to the Rule of Faith it is intended by the Scriptures though that intent is evidenced by the Tradition of the Church If to the Lawes of the Church the authority of it comes from the Scriptures though the evidence of it may depend upon common sense which the practice of the Church may convince If over and above both it is not receivable if not contained in the Scriptures And in this regard whosoever maintains the whole Scripture to be the Rule of Faith is throughly justified by all those testimonies that have been alleged to that purpose For though it be not necessary to the salvation of all Christians to understand the meaning of all the Scriptures yet what Scripture soever a man attains to understand is as much a Rule to his Faith as that which a man cannot be saved if hee understand not the sense of it whether in and by the Scripture or without it And though a man may be obliged to believe that which is not in the Scripture to have been instituted by the Apostles yet is he not obliged to observe it but upon that reason which the Scripture delivereth And upon these terms is the whole Scripture a Rule of Faith from which as nothing is to be taken away so is nothing to be added to it as the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. II. Hom. XII requireth And the saying of S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemning all that is done without Scripture takes place upon no other terms than these Not as Cartwright and our Puritanes after him imagine that a man is to have a text of Scripture specifying every thing which hee doth for his warrant For as it is in it self ridiculous to imagine that all cases which fall out can be ruled by expresse text of Scripture our Christianity being concerned infinite wayes of which it is evident that the Scripture had no occasion to speak So if the words of the Scripture be lodged in a heart where the work of them dwelleth not a thing which wee see too possible to come to passe it is the ready way to make the Word of God a color for all unrighteousnesse not onely to others but to the very heart of him who hath that cloke for it It is therefore enough that the reason of every thing which a Christian doth is to be derived from that doctrine which the Scripture declaeth And where a man proceedeth to do that for which hee hath not such a reason so grounded as reasonable men use to go by then cometh that to passe which S. Basil chargeth Ascet Reg. LXXX That What is not of faith is sin It is true according to that sense which hitherto I have used after many Church Writers the Rule of Faith extendeth not to all the Scriptures but onely to that which it is necessary to salvation to believe and to know Which every man knowes that all the Scripture is not For though it be necessary to salvation to believe that all the Scripture is true yet is it not necessary to salvation to know all that the Scripture containeth And the reason why I use it in this sense is to distinguish those things contained in the Scriptures which Tradition extendeth to from those to which it extendeth not For upon these terms is the sense of them limitable to the common Faith But I quarel not therefore the opinion of them that maintaine the whole Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith acknowledging that whatsoever it containeth is necessarily to be believed by all that come to understand it And whatsoever it containeth not though the Scripture alone obligeth not to believe the truth of it is not necessarily to be observed for any other reason but that which the Scripture declareth As for S. Basil making it apostasy to bring that which is not written into the Faith It is a thing well known that the Arians were charged by the Church for bringing in words that were not in the Scriptures saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when Christ was not And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That hee was made of nothing On the other side after the Council of Nicaea the Arians charged the Church for bringing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance Where then lay the difference between the Inndelity of the Arians and the Faith of the Church Theodoret showes it Hist Eccles I. 8. out of Athanasius de Actis Concil Niceni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee They were condemned by written words piously understood But how appears this piety For I suppose the Arians would not have granted it Hee addeth that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been used by the Fathers which had it been inconsistent with the sense of the Church could not have been indured in a mater concerning the Rule of Faith whereas their terms were contrary to that which is found in the Scriptures Now S. Basil acknowledgeth that hee had elsewhere dealing with Hereticks used terms not found in the Scriptures to exclude their sense contrary to the Scriptures as you shall finde by the Authors alleged that the Council of Nicaea had done but to those who desired information with a single heart hee resolves to rest content with the Scriptures The terms whereof his meaning is that the Hereticks did not rest content with because they had a minde to depart from the Faith Upon the same terms Tertullian pronounces the Wo that belongs to them which adde to Gods Word upon Hermogenes because his error concerned the Article of our Creed that God made heaven and earth And S. Austine presumes the reason why there is no clear Scripture for the original of the soul to be because hee presumes that it concerns not the substance of Faith Besides these Observations some of those passages which are alleged may concern Christianity rather than the Scriptures
that hee hath any end but himself nor that hee doth any thing to any other end than to exercise and declare his own perfections If hee do sundry things which of their nature have necessarily such an end as they attain not it is to be said that Gods end never fails in so much as by failing of the end to which they were made they become the subject of some other part of that providence wherein his perfections are exercised and declared Seeing then that all Controversies concerning the Faith have visibly their original from some passages of Scripture which being presupposed true before the foundation of the Church ought to be acknowledged but cannot be constituted by it And seeing that no man that out of the conscience of a Christian hath imbraced all that is written can deny that which hee may have cause to believe to be the sense of the least part of the Scripture without ground to take away that belief It remains that the way to abate Controversies is to rest content with the means that God hath left us to determine the sense of the Scripture not undertaking to tye men further to it than the applying of those means will inferre And truly to imagine that the authority of the Church or the dictate of Gods Spirit should satisfie doubts of that nature without showing the means by which other records of learning are understood and so resolving those doubts which the Scriptures necessarily raise in all them that believe them to be true and the word of God is more than huge cart-loads of Commentaries upon the Scriptures have have been able to do Which being written upon supposition of certain determinations pretended by the Church or certain positions which tending to reform abuses in the Church were taken for testified by Gods Spirit have produced no effect but an utter despair of coming to resolution or at least acknowledgment of resolution in the sense of the Scriptures Whereas let men capable of understanding and managing the means heretofore mentioned think themselves free as indeed they ought to be of all prejudices which the partialities on foot in the Church may have prepossessed them with and come to determine the meaning thereof by the means so prescribed and within those bounds which the consent of the Church acknowledges They shall no sooner discern how the primitive Christianity which we have from the Apostles becomes propagated to us but they shall no less clearly discern the same in their writings And if God have so great a blessing for Christendom as the grace to look upon what hath been written with this freedom there hath been so much of the meaning of the Scripture already discovered by those that have laid aside such prejudices and so much of it is in the way to be discovered every day if the means be pursued as is well to be hoped will and may make partizans think upon the reason they have to maintain partialities in the Church If God have not this blessing in store for Christendom it remains that without or against all satisfaction of conscience concerning the truth of contrary pretenses men give themselves up to follow and professe that which the protection of secular Power shall show them means to live and thrive by In which condition whether there be more of Atheism or of Christianity I leave to him who alone sees all mens hearts to judge CHAP. XXXIV The Dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chief objections against them are questionable In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church HAving thus resolved the main point in doubt it cannot be denied notwithstanding that there are some parts or appertenances of the Question that remain as yet undecided For as long as it is onely said that the Scripture interpreted by the consent of the Church is a sufficient mean to determine any thing controverted in mater of Christian truth there is nothing said till it appear what these Scriptures are and in what records they are contained And truly it is plain that there remains a controversie concerning the credit of some part of those writings which have been indifferently copied and printed for the Old Testament commonly marked in our English Bibles by the title of Apocrypha And no lesse concerning the credit of the Copies wherein they are recorded For though it is certain and evident that the Old Testament hath been derived from the Ebrew the New from the Greek in which at first they were delivered to the Church Yet seeing it appeareth not of it self impossible such changes may have succeeded in the Copies that the Copies which the Jews now use of the Old Testament are further from that which was first delivered than the Vulgar Latine as also the Copies of the Greek Testament now extant It is a very plain case that this doubt remaining it is not yet resolved what are the principles what the means to determine the truth in maters questionable concerning Christianity I must further distinguish two questions that may be made in both these points before I go further For it is evidently one thing to demand whether those writings which I said remain questionable are to be counted part of the Old Testament or not Another whether they are to be read by Christians either for particular information or for publick edification at the assemblies of the Church And likewise as concerning the other point it is one thing to demand what Copy is to be held for authentick another thing to dispute how every Copy is to be used and frequented in the Church To wit whether translations in mother languages are to be had and into what credit they are to be received For it is manifest that the one sense of both questions demands what the body of the Church either may do or ought to do in proposing or prohibiting the said writings or Copies to be used by the members thereof for their edification in Christian piety But the other what credit they have in themselves upon such grounds as are in nature and reason more ancient than the authority of the Church and which the being and constitution thereof presupposeth And as manifest as it is that these are two questions so manifest must it needs remain that the one of them to wit that which concerns the authority of the Church and the effect of it does not belong to this place nor come to be decided but upon supposition of all the means God hath given his Church to be resolved of any truth that becomes questionable As for the other part of both questions though it hath been and may be among them that will not understand the difference between principles and conclusions because it is for
Valerianus de Flavigny Professor of the Ebrew in the University of Paris written in opposition to an opinion vented in the Preface to the great Bible lately published there in disparagement of the Ebrew Copy of the Old Testament Where hee shall see that opinion refuted with that eagernesse and the contrary attested by the opinions of so many Divines of so great note in the Church of Rome since that Council that no man that sees them can deny that notwithstanding the decree it is free for every man to maintain the original Copies to be authentick And truly hee that should affirm the credit of the Scripture to stand upon the decree of the present Church or upon the testimony of the Spirit must by consequence have recourse to the same visible decree or to the same invisible dictate whensoever it shall be necessary to accept or refuse the reading of any text of Scripture with that faith which if it be false the whole truth of Christianity will be forfeit What Rushworth and his possession would do to evidence what reading of the Scripture is indeed authentick when as it doth not appear what is the reading which the Church is truly in possession of let him advise For in that case hee must expresly avow the consequence of his position that the Scripture is not considerable in resolving Controversies of Faith Because the Church is not in possession of the certain reading of any Scripture For if hee say hee hath made short work in that question having discharged the Scripture of being necessary to the Church and therefore acquitted himself of any necessity to show how wee may come by true Scripture and in stead thereof and all other means of deciding Controversies in the Church established the tradition presently in possession First it will be easier for mee to verifie the short Rule of Faith by the Scriptures interpreted according to that which by records may appear to have been from the beginning of force in the Church than it will be for him to show what is the Tradition which the Church is in possession of at present And that this being showed I shall not need to fear any great danger that hee may object from the variety of reading which may be found in several Copies the necessity of salvation being secured And then in the next place to say That the Scripture is not necessary though not for the salvation of every Christian yet for the salvation of the Body of Christians which is the Church Though that faction which separation ingenders will suffer no opinion to be plausible but those which are in extreams Yet I hope the malice of Satan hath not yet debauched the ears of Christians to indure And thus as afore it was settled that the whole Scripture is received for the word of God upon the credit of Tradition so of every part and parcel of it wherein the credit of several Copies consisteth it is consequently to be said that nothing can oblige the faith of a Christian to receive it unquestionably for the word of God the Tradition whereof is not unquestionable But thus mâ—ch being settled That what was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew is to be received for the authentick Word of God What was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew may still remain questionable That is to say this being agreed it may still remain questionable what Copies they are that do contain that which was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew How probable it is I need not yet say but any man of common sense must say that it is possible through the changes that time is able to produce that the translations shall prove better than the originals and that the Scriptures shall be truer read among those that have received than among those that delivered them And this is indeed the true state of the question which is now come to be disputed upon due terms as it seems To wit whether the Ebrew Copies which now wee have from the Jews and the Greek Copies of the New Testament now extant contain that Scripture which all Christians are bound to receive upon their Christianity not onely in opposition to the Vulgar Latine which the Council of Trent injoyneth and to the authority of the present Church thinking that it is concluded in that decree but in opposition to that Tradition which other ancient Copies either original or translated may and do contain and evidence In which point I shall in the first place professe as concerning the Old Testament that I finde it no inconvenience but a great deal of reason to grant that at what time those books were made up into a Body and consigned unto the Synagogue the reading which wee have received from them was not delivered as unquestionable so that it should be any prejudice to the Law of God to suspect it but as the most probable and by admitting whereof no prejudiee to the said Law could follow And the safety of this position both Jews and Christians will witnesse with mee For if the Jews rruly acknowledg and insist that their Judaism is sufficiently grounded and witnessed by the leter of the Old Testament which wee have the Christians that their Christianity is as sufficiently to be evidenced by the Copies wee have as Christianity was intended to be delivered by the Scriptures of the Old Testament Is it possible that it should be a mater of jealousie for mee to admit that in that Body of the Old Testament which the Christians have received from the Jews there may be found some passages the reading whereof was not received as unquestionable when the Body of the Old Testament was consigned to the Synagogue from whence the Church receiveth it I say not when this time was nor would I have that which I affirm here to stand upon a circumstance so disputable I do believe the Jews when they tell us of the men of the Great Synagogue after the return from the Captivity from whom and by whom the Scriptures they believe were settled and delivered to their posterity I do also believe that this Assembly might and did indure whilest the Grace of Prophets had vogue and was in force among Gods people For if I believe them when they tell mee that there was such a company of men I cannot disbelieve them that the Prophets Haggai Zachary and Malachi the Scribe Esdras the same with Malachi as they tell us for any thing I know for why should I not believe Malachi being appellative and signifying my messenger to be Esdras his surname given him from that which is prophesied Mal. III. 1 Mordecai Nehemias Josue the son of Josedok and many others of that time were of it But shall I believe that their Prophetical grace was imployed to decide the true reading of the Scripture shall I believe that a new revelation was given to notifie how every leter and syllable was to be read when neither the consequence of the mater required it
death in the profession of Christianity left no doubt in the mind of any Christian whether they should be saved or not suffering for Christ before they were baptized But because those who might have had means and opportunity to be baptized at such times and upon such occasions as the rules and customes of the Church furnished by neglecting the same ministred some ground to presume that they had not in them that resolution to undergo the Crosse of Christ in and for the performance of that which baptisin undertakes in consideration whereof he grants those promises which his Gospel proclaimeth And having said this I conceive I need say no more to show the necessity of Baptism according to the doctrine and practise of the whole Church which I proved afore by the Scriptures For if those who professed to believe Christianity and had resolved to enter into that estate and life which it required came under a doubtfull repute as to their salvation among Christians where they were intercepted by death before they were Christened by baptism well may the unavoydable casualties of mortality dispense in the necessity of an act the means whereof may depend upon something else beside his will that wants it But it appears therefore a necessary ingredient in the condition which qualifies for the promises of the Gospel when the desire of having it if it were possible appears absolutely undispensable And this shall save me the labour of producing the testimonies of Church Writers to evidence the sense thereof in all ages For the sense of the Church cannot be so effectually evidenced by the sayings of particular persons of what authority soever in their own Churches as it is evident by the customs really in force which it appeareth that particular persons held themselves obliged to follow And therefore to the opinions presently on foot Of the Socinians That baptisme was necessary under the Apostles to profess that purity of life which Christianity promiseth when men were converted from Jews or Gentiles to Christians but indifferent for those that wear that profession by being born and brought up under Christian parents And of some Enthusiasts among us who think it a meer mistake to baptize with water into Christianity the Baptism of John being the Baptism of water but the Baptism of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Christ of which Opinions you shall hear more by and by I say to these opinions it shall serve my turn to say That the necessity of the Baptism of Water stands evidenced by the same means that convince the World of the truth of Christianity To wit by the Scriptures hitherto alledged and by the consent of all Christians For it will be impossible to alledge not only any Writer that hath been allowed and credited by the Church but any man that hath pass'd for a Christian in the Church that ever undertook to perswade himselfe or any man else to presume that he should be saved neglecting Baptism For what reason and upon what ground I leave to those that shall neglect S. Peters distinction hitherto pleaded to alledge As for the next point which is the manner of baptizing from the circumstances and ceremonies of it I shall but relate here what I alledged out of S. Peter in the beginning of the solemn questions propounded of course to those that demanded Baptism whether they did believe the truth of Christianity whether they would undertake to profess it and to fight against the flesh the World and the Divel for the observing of it whether he desired to be baptized upon these terms Neither shall I need to alledge the testimonies of Church-Writers for the use of the same ceremony which at this day is in force in the Church of England And though there be those that are liberall enough in censuring it as impertinent now that all are baptized Infants and though this be not the place to consider such exceptions yet I will here take notice how the contract thus executed concerns â—he salvation of Christians that so it may be judged how it concerns the Office of Baptism that what so concerns the salvation of Christians be expressed in it To the same purpose I will here alledge the putting on of white robes after Baptisin Whereupon the Sunday after Easter-day is still called Dominica in Albis The Lords day in Whites which first they had put on at Easter when they were baptized which custome seemeth to have been in use in the Church when S. Paul said Rom. XIII 14. Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill it in the lusts thereof And Gal. III. 27. As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ And Joh. IV. 22. 24. To put off the old man and put on the new man which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse And Col. 3. 10. Having put off the old man with his actions and put on the new man that is renewed unto knowledge according to the image of him that made him For all these expressions seem to be allusions to that which they saw done and practised before their eyes But those that yield not so much cannot refuse to grant that the custome was taken up by the Church to signifie the profession of that which the Apostle injoyneth all Christians in those that were baptized The same thing signified by signing those that were baptized with the sign of the Crosse Which S. Augustine expounds very well by the custome of the Roman Empire to set a mark on the bodies of those that were listed Souldiers and upon slaves by which they might be known and brought back if they should run away or depart from their colours For though the sign of the Crosse made upon him that is baptized remain not visible upon him yet being done publickly and solemnly and as S. Paul saith of Timothy under many witnesses he is notwithstanding to be challenged by it of what he undertooke And he that observes this mark to be called by the ancient Church sigillum the signe or seal must think of S. Pauls words 2 Cor. I. 21 22. But he that establisheth us with you into Christ and anointeth us is God who hath also signed us and put the earnest of his Spirit into our hearts And Ephes I. 13. In whom also having believed ye were signed with the Holy Spirit of Promise And IV. 30. Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God by whom ye are signed to the day of Redemption I say he must think of these words of S. Paul as I said of those concerning the white robes of them them that were baptized That they are either allusions to that which men saw done by the appointment of the Apostles or occasions of taking up these ceremonies by the primitive Church I might here argue from the custom of Vndertakers which now are called Godfathers and Godmothers to the same purpose For if it were requisite that the Church should be secured
by some of theit own body that they who demanded Baptism were no counterfeits but would stand to what they undertook it ought to be an Argument that they were to undertake that which they give the Church security to perform And indeed this custom being nothing else but an appertenance or consequence of the Interrogatories of Baptism I need say no more but that it appears thereby what those that were admitted to Baptism undertook when they were to have Sureties to undertake for them that they dissembled not in that which they undertook But in the next place I will alledge the constitution of the Church and all the authority of it Grounded as by the means which I have imployed to make evidence of it appeareth upon supposition and presumption that by being baptized into the visible communion thereof we attain invisible communion in the promises which the Gospel tendreth There are some that take upon them to censure the ancient Church for the abuse which I spoke of even now in delaying of Baptism These men if they will go alwaies by the same weights and measures must call S. Paul to account why he makes this demand 1 Cor. V. 12 13. What have I to do to judge those that are without do not ye judge those that are within But those that are without God shall judge For those who professed only to believe Christianity though obliged to learn how to behave themselves like Christians for with what face could they demand Baptism otherwise yet to speak properly were not Christians were not of the Church Therefore Clemens Alexandrinus in the end of his Paedagogus bringeth in the Word that is our Lord Christ or his Gospel which he calleth the Paedagogue for governing these Children and Novices in Christianity in their way to the Church giving up this Office to himselfe as being to become for the future their Doctor and Master and Bishop◠at their entrance into the Churcch The passage is remarkable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is not for me to teach these things further saith the Paedagogue We have need of a Doctor to expound these holy Oracles and to him we must go And truly it is time for me to give over my Office of Paedagogue and for you to become the Doctors Hearers He receiving you bread with good government having behaved themselves well during the time of their trial shall teach you these Oracles And in good time here is the Church and the onely Doctor the Bridegroom the good mind of a good Father Christ or the Gospel of Christ is the Paedagogue that guides and governs Children in Christianity to the School that is to the Church to demand baptism having behaved themselves well by the way during the time of their triall When that is done he teaches them no more as children are taught by a Paedagogue But as a Master teaches his Scholars so Christ those that are become his Disciples by being baptized Therefore afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Paedagogue having set us in the Church hoth recommended us to himselfe the Word the Doctor and Bishop of all And this is our Lords Commission to his Apostles to make them Disciples that should take up his Crosse by baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Then to teach them to observe all that he had given them in Charge The same is the ground of Cassanders observation which is much to my purpose That the Church putteth no man to penance whatsoever his life may have been for any thing done before Baptism Zosimus thinks he layes a great imputation upon Christianity in pretending that Constantine finding no means to come clear of the bloud of his Wife Fausta or his Son Crispus gave ear to Christianity because it pretended to wash away all sin That Constantine should seek those meanes which Heathenism pretendeth to purge sin with may well be thought to proceed from the malignity of the Gentiles against the first Christian Prince For the rest not disputing of his doings before Baptism because the Church judgeth not that those are without though he professed Christianity when they were done it would be a disparagement to that Fountain which God hath opened for Juda and Jerusalem that there should be any sin which it cannot cleanse supposing the change sincere which the undertaking of Christianity professeth If not God is his Judge But though the Church refuse no man Baptism because professing Christianity he had delayed his Baptism yet as it appeared sufficiently by the scruple that was made of the salvation of those that died in that estate that the Church disallowed it so when they were come into the Church a mark of the authority of the Church was fastened upon them in that those that were baptized in their beds were made uncapable by one of those Canons which I spoke of in the first Book that were in force before the Church had any Canons in writing of being promoted to the Clergy For this you shall find objected to Noratianus by Cornelius in Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 43. That by the Canons he ought not to have been promoted to any rank in the Clergy because he had been baptized in his bed of sickness having delayed his Baptism for fear of persecution till he found himselfe in danger of death And though the Church put no man to penance for his life before Baptism because Christianity it selfe pretendeth a totall change in him that imbraceth it and that the Church judgeth not but presumeth of the truth of that change which is pretended by him that is without yet it fasteneth a mark of the authority which it purchaseth upon Christianity by providing that no man who had been ever put to penance should be promoted to any rank of the Clergy The reason is expressed in those words of Clemens his Epistle to the Corinthians pag. 54. speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching over Countreys and Cities they made the First-fruits of them whom they had converted Bishops and Ministers of them that should believe The learned Bloudell will have these First-fruits to signifie those that were first converted to Christianity A mistake more sutable to the prejudice which he had undertook to maintain then to the rest of his learning For who knoweth not that First-fruits are the best the floure the cream of the whole And if no man that dared not to professe Christianity no man that had been put to penance for failing having profest it is to be of the Clergy you see why they are called the First-fruits of Christians In the mean time if the Church judge not those that are without doth it not judge those that are within according to S. Paul Show me any thing that ever was called a Church that is shew me the time when and the place where Christianity was ever settled and exercised according to order and rule where those that had received Baptism were not under a discipline
forgive our brethren their offences against us Mat. VI. 14. 15. Our Lord rendring a reason why he had taught his disciples to pray Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespasse against us For if it forgive men their sinnes your heavenly Father will forgive you also But if you forgive not men their Transgressions neither will your Father forgive your Transgressions And the Apostle James II. 13. to the same purpose Judgement shall be without mercy to him that sheweth not mercy And the foote of our Saviours Parable Mat. XVIII 35. So also shall your bravenly Father do to you if from your hearts yee forgive not every one his Brother their transgressions So Mar. XI 25. 26. And Luc. VI. 37. 38. Judge not and yee shall not be judged condemn not and ye shall not be condemned pardon and ye shall be pardoned give and there shall be given to you good measure crouded and shaken and runing over shall be given into your bosome for the measure that ye mete with shall be measured to you againe And againe Luk. XI 41. But give Almes according to your power and all things shall be cleane to you So Solomen Prov. XVI 6. By mercy and truth shall inquity be expiated And Daniell to Nebuchodonosor Dan. III. 5. Redeeme thy sins by righteousnesse or Almes deeds and thy iniquity by shewing compassion upon the afflicted For the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can signifie nothing but Redeem in the Caldee though there is a figure of speech in the Prophets Language intending redeem thy self from thy sinnes as I shall have occasion to say in another place and therefore t is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from hence come those sayings Tobit IV. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And againe Tob. XII 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Almes delivereth from death and suffereth not to enter into darknesse And Almes delivereth from death and purgeth away all sinne And Ecclus. III. 33. Water quencheth flaming fire and with almes shall he make prepitiation for sinnes And XXIX 15. Shut up almes in thy store houses and they will deliver thee from all afflictions And the words of the Apostle are plainest in this sense I Pet. IV. 8. Charity shall cover a many sinnes The Prophet also to the same purpose Isa I. 17. For they that make that filth which alone justifieth not to include or presuppose that condition to which Baptisme tieth Christians must needs crucifie themselves and set the Scriptures upon the rack to finde another meaning for them then the words bear By which that which God hath made due without and before any condition may turely be said to be given in consideration of it Which reason and the common sense of all men abhors But supposing that faith which onely justifieth to include the profession of undertaking Christianity as the condition upon which the promises of the Gospel are to be expected So certaine as it is that this will not be due if the condition be not fulfilled so necessary and so proper it will be to say That whatsoever that condition includeth is the consideration upon which the promise cometh though not by virtue of the thing done but by virtue of Gods tender and the Covenant of Grace and the promise which it containeth and the free goodnesse of God which first moved him to tender that promise And therefore you shall find those that suppose it not alwayes tormenting themselves to force upon the Scriptures such a meaning as the words of them doe not beare And in the last place concerning the consent of the Church though the Fathers are free in acknowledging with S. Paul justification by faith alone yet notwithstanding they are on the other side so copious in attributing the promises of the Gospel to the good workes of Christians that it may truly be said there is never a one of them from whom sufficient authority is not to be had for evidence thereof Which will amount to a tradition of the whole Church in this point In particular S. Augustine to whom appeal is wont to be made in all parts of that dispute which relateth to the Heresie of Pelagius hath so clearly and so copiously delivered the answer which I maintaine to those texts of S. Paul where he denieth that Christians are justified by the workes of the Law that those that challenge him in other points of this dispute concerning the Covenant of Grace doe not pretend to be of his mind in this Though the ground of this answer consisting in the twofold sense of the Law deserved as I conceive to be further cleared even after S. Augustine and the rest of ancient Church-writers I would therefore have the reader here to understand that I account all the rest of this second book to be nothing else but the resolution of those difficulties the answer to those objections and demandes which arise upon the determination here advanced The chief of them is that which followes in the next place How the promises of the Gospel can be said to be the effects of Gods free grace requiring our Christianity as the condition upon which they become due and not otherwise But there are also others concerning the possibility of fulfulling Gods Law by the new obedience of Christians concerning the goodnesse and perfection of it concerning the force and effect of good workes either in making satisfaction for sinne or in meriting life everlasting Which I shall allow that consideration in due time which the model of this abridgement will bear As for the sense of the Fathers evidencing the Tradition of the Church I am yet to learn that there ever was any exception alledged to infringe the consent of the Church in the necessity of good workes to the obtaining of salvation for Christians But onely the case of those who being taken away by death upon professing Christianity have not time to bring forth the fruits of it And how good workes can be the necessary meanes to procure the salvation of Christians but by virtue of that Law or condition for obtaining salvation which the Gospel now expresly enacteth and alwaies did covertly effectuate no sense of man comprehendeth For that the ancient Church agreeth in allowing the force of satisfaction for sinne to workes of Penance of Merit for the world to come to workes done in the state of Grace none of the Reformation which either disowneth or excuseth it for so doing according to the respect they have for it can make questionable And therefore though this be not the place to justifie the ancient Church in these particulars yet this is evident that those who maintaine more then my position requires do agree in that which it containes I shall therefore content my selfe for the present with producing some speciall passages of the Fathers expressing in my opinion the markes of my position and the reasons whereupon it proceeds As limiting the position between faith and workes in the matter of justifying
Irenaeus expresly maintaineth him one and the same God with the Father and true God and his generation ineffable without beginning and from everlasting Clemens makes him God â—quall to God as his Sonne Origen not in any work now extant that may be questioned but as he is alledged by Athanasius de decretis Synodi Niceâ—ae saies of him that if there be any image of God who is invisible that image must also be invisible with a great deal more to the same purpose where he also quotes Theognostus in secundo hypopseon affirming the same at large to set aside those that are questioned And shall we not think our selves obliged so to understand their words which the importunity of Heresies have made questionable that they may consist and agree with those which remaine unquestionable Especially all of them agreeing in this That the world was made and is governed by Christ And that the whole dispensation of God tending to the salvation of mankinde whether before the Law or under the Law as well as since his appearing in the flesh was executed by him as a preface and prologue to his coming in the flesh a supposition which all seem to ground themselves upon especially against the Jewes in giving account of our common Christianity That our Faith is in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost That we are to glorifie to worship and to be baptized in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost And in counting all Hereticks that denied it For communion with the Church not communicating with those who believe it not because they believe it not is an evidence which no words of doubtfull construction can obscure in the judgement of any man that is reasonable Nay among the very heathen that have made any mention of the Christian Faith doth not Plinies Epistle concerning the Christians acknowledge that they sung hymns to Christ as to God Doth not Lucian in his Philopatris manifestly expresse the Faith of the Trinity as the cognizance of Christians at that time hath it not appeared by these inventions wherewith the Gnosticks sophisticated it that the Fulness of the Godhead consists in the Trinity according to the Christian Faith as according to the severall Sects of them in their severall inventions That the Christians honoured and worshipped the blessed Trinity as those Sects did those imaginatitions of their own which they call the Fullnesse of the Godhead When Ebion Cerinthus Artemon Theodorus and after them Sabellius Noetus Praxâ—as and Paâ—lus Samosatenus were disowned by the whole Church and excluded the communion of all Christians did not all Churches that agreed in refusing them find themselves possessed of a contrary Faith as the reason for which they were refused Were all Christians out of their simplicity cunning enough to assoile all the reasons whereby these and Arius to boot did or might argue their pretenses from texts of Scripture Or did they think themselves bound to rest in the visible consent of the whole Church whether they were able to do that or not In fine the learned Jesuite Petavius in the Preface to his books de Trinitate and the beginning of the first as he hath evidently shewed that the substance of the faith of the Trinity is acknowledged by these ancient Christians some of whose words seem to disparage the Godhead of our Lord Christ So he indeavoureth to shew that they did it out of a desire to reconcile the faith with the doctrine of Plato and his followers If his opinion be admitted there will remaine evidence enough for the Tradition of Faith even in their writings whose skill in the Scriptures goes not the right way to maintaine it The plain song will be good musick though the descant transgresse Though for my part having seen what he hath said I repent me not of that which I had conceived out of Tertullianâ— That out of a desire to reconcile the creation of wisdome in the Proverbs according to the Greek not the doctrine of Plato with the rule of Faith they conceived this a supposition fit to do it That by Gods proceeding to create the World his mind or wisdome which incarnate is our Lord Christ attained not the essence and being which it had in God from everlasting but the denomination and quality of his Word and Sonne For you shall find there that most of them concurre in the speculations of Tertulliane Whereby you may see that this learned Jesuite is not agreed with the Cardinall du Perron to deny the reason why we hold the Faith of the holy Trinity originally from the decree of the Council of Nicâ—a and from that authority of the Church which maintaineth it But from the reason whereupon that decree was grounded and made That is from the meaning of the Scriptures expressed and limited by the Tradition of the Church And therefore not burthening my self here with the expounding of all those passages of their writings before Arius which may seem to derogate from the Tradition of the Church in that point I shall referre the Reader to those things whereby he showeth that they do unanimously concurre in maintaining the same Faith For if there be amongst them that have had speculations tending to reconcile some Scriptures to it which are not onely ill grounded as I dispute not but this of Tertulliane is but also prejudiciall to the Faith as some of Origens whom I have mentioned already That this is to be imputed to the inconsequence of their severall discourses not to any difference in their common Faith I remit you to that which he hath said to judge Onely whereas he de Trinitate II. 2. hath given you a full account of those Fathers which expound the words of our Lord The Father is greater then I to be meant of his Godhead which I have onely named in gross I will advise you again hereupon that many things which are said of the Sonne as inferior to the Father as when he is said to Minister unto the Father in creating the World may be imputed not to any inequality in that Godhead which is the same in all the Trinity but unto the manner of having it the Father originally as the Fountaine the Sonne and the holy Ghost as from him wherein the difference of the persons consisteth To the same Petavius de Trinitate VIII 2. I remit them that would be satisfied of the sense of the Fathers in that which I alledged for the reason why our Lord is called the Word by S. John To wit that the intercourse between God and man after the fall was executed and managed by his Ministry Not because I think this name of the Word unfit to signifiy the originall proceeding of the Sonne from the Father much lesse his concurrence in and to the creation of all things But because believing as I do that the mystery of the Trinity is revealed by the coming of our Lord I find great reason to conceive that his Apostle intended thereby to intimate
that the godly of the Old Testament were reconciled to God by the meanes of his Word and Spirit howsoever they understood that which is signified by these Titles I know the Arians made their advantage of that which Justine and others had said That God imployed his Sonne to man because he was himself invisible To say thereupon that the Father onely is invisible and incomprehensible even by the Sonne And that S. Austine thereupon counts it rashnesse to say that all the intercourse between God and man was ministred by the Sonne the Father and the holy Ghost not appearing at all in any of these Revelations That Dionysius acknowledgeth that all of them Athanasius that some of them were done by the Ministery of Angels The testomonies whereof you may find collected there And truly that God the Father was not revealed by these apparitions were a thing utterly unreasonable to imagine That Gods Angels did attend upon his Sonne in those messages wherein some one of them caries the proper Name of God is a thing which the Scriptures alledged afore will necessarily require But that whereâ—oever God deales with man by the Ministry of an Angel to whom the proper name and honour of God is attributed there the Sonne of God came to do Gods Word to man for a preface to his coming in the flesh And that whosoever received this word from God was withall possessed by his Spirit as I see it is very agreeable to the Scripture so I find no reason valuable why I should repent me to have said it I know that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria hath been alledged for an authority that interrupteth the Tradition of the Church in the matter of the Trinity And I acknowledge S. Basils judgement comparing him with one who dressing plants and finding one that growes awry bends it so without measure that he sets it as much awry on the other side For writing against Sabellius and not content to settle the difference of the persons he saies that through heat of contention he let fall words that signified also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference of nature inferiority of Power and diversity of glory Epist XLI Whereof though I intend not to question any part I will say neverthelesse as I have alleged this passage of Dionysius in evidence for the unity of the Church so here that I desire no better evidence for the Rule of Faith which the same presupposeth Suppose for the present the sense of Dionysius to be questionable as it was to these Bishops of Pentapolis his Suffraganes who finding themselves offended at that which he had written gave information of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome and to his Synode which Athanasius de Synodis Arim. Seleuciae expresly nominateth Can there be a greater argument that the communion of the Church stood grounded upon the profession of that Faith which he seemed to transgresse then the concurrence of Rome and the Churches that resorted to Rome with those which resorted to Alexandria in that Faith which he seemed to transgresse Certainly the agreement of all Christians in admitting the Scriptures at this day is not able to produce the like And therefore granting the writings of Dionysius to have been an attempt upon the Faith the opposition that was so warmly made assures us that doctrine which the authority of a Bishop of Alexandria could not give passeport to was inconsistent with the Rule in force For the Satisfaction which he tendred in the Letter recorded by Athanasius shewes what the sense of the Church was for satisfaction whereof he was forced to write And therefore I may safely and do acknowledge some of his words to be more offensive then it can be fit for me to excuse Though his own leter alledges the similitudes of a plant and the shoot of it of a well and the stream flowing from it which the Church since Arius hath always used to make it understood Which may seem to render him reconcileable to the Faith of Nicaea by understanding the difference which he signifieth to consist not in the Godhead which may be understood to be the same in the fountain as in the stream but in the rank and manner of having it necessarily rendring that which proceedeth in that regard inferior to that from whence it proceedeth I know it is said againe that the Council of LXXX Bishops that condemned Samosatenus at Antiochia in their Epistle alledged there by Athanasius do say that the Sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father And that it is said that the two parts of a contradiction may as well be reconciled as this with the Faith of Nicaea But with what judgement let S. Hilary speake Libro de Synodis Male intelligitur homousion Quid ad me bene intelligentem Male homousion Samosateâ—s confessus est Sed nunquid melius Ariani negarunt Octagiâ—ta Episcopi olim respuerunt Sed trecenti decâ—m octo nuper receperunt The homousion is wrong understood What is that to me that understand it right Samosatenus acknowledged it wrong Were the Arians more in the right in denying it Fourscore Bishops resused it long since Three hundred and eighteen have received it of late This had been enough to make a reasonable man suspect an equivocation in the businesse But Athanasius would have told him wherein it consisted and how and in what sense Samosatenus maintained it His argument was If our Lord Christ were not made God of man which first he had been made then must he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father and so there shall be three substances one principall that of the Father two proceeding from him of the Son and holy Ghost And shall not all that imbrace the Creed of Nicaea disdaine Consubstantiality in this sense Which plainly makes the Father Sonne and holy Ghost of the same substance no otherwise then three men are said to be of one substance I know Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea might have been further alledged out of S. Basil Epist LXIV Where he acknowledgeth him to have called the Father and the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this in a discourse written to Aelian a Pagan to convert him to Christianity and at the bottom consisting of nothing but equivocation of terms He allowing himself to term the Sonne the creature and make of the Father whom the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the cause of the Sonne And to call them two in notion but one for hypostasis because he takes hypostasis for substance and notion for that Character which distinguisheth between persons which in the now terms of the Schoole are said to be known and discerned by their notions But I will go no further in Origens behalf or in behalf of any Scholar of Origens If he have left that which necessarily imports an ill sense whereof his Scholars Dionysius or
for his discharge But I will say thaâ— as in the case of the Nicene Creed and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it appeareth that the Church may be necessitated to use such expressions as have not been in use afore and not onely to allow particular persons as Doctors of the Church to use them but to give them pasport and authority in the publick service of the Church And that people or Doctors of the Church should stick at them when they are first frequented is no more to be marvailed at then that the Socinians should marvaile that the Son of God who acknowledges to come from the Father and to receive all from him should by any man be acknowledged God from everlasting Unlesse it be marvailed that all that allow it not are not Socinians For neither is it any marvaile that men should marvaile at the due consequences of those things which themselves admit Nor that marvailing at them some should be Socinians others continue Christians All this would be good in case it did appear that S. Hilary had any where put any doubt whether the holy Ghost may be called God or not But the observation of Erasmus bears no more then this That S. Hilary is no where found to call the H. Ghost God which who will not laugh at unlesse it could be said that S Hilary no way saies as much as that is For shall the Faith of the Church or shall the Faith of S. Hilary depend upon the use of that word Shall it not serve his turne that he useth words signiâ—ying the same Which had Erasmus been so diligent to collect as the Socinians have been forward to make advantage of his negligence they had never drawn that observation into consequence He that would be satisfied of S. Hilaries Faith as well as of the Faith of the Church before S. Hilary in this point Let him peruse what Petavius hath collected Dogâ—atum Theol. 3. de Trinitate VII 7-15 I am now before I leave this point to consider what the light of reason argues against the mystery of the Trinity which I acknowledge to seem so strong that it seems to forbid all use of reason in them that admit the Christian Faith For seeing all use of reason supposes this principle that those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with the other And that the mystery of the Trinity inferres Though the Father is God and the Sonne God yet that the Sonne is not the Father It seems it cannot be maintained without disowning the use of reasonable discourse This difficulty may be and is branched out into many difficulties It is argued If so Then shall there be three Gods the Father one the Sonne another and the Holy Ghost a third Or three substancâ—s of one Godhead every person being God which is the substance of the Godhead Or that the same thing the Godhead shall subsist thrice to wit in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost It is argued If so Then shall every person be three persons Because every person is God that is Father Sonne and holy Ghost That the persons of the Godhead shall be both really the same and really diverse or not the same Being the same God yet severall persons It is argued further If so Then shall the Sonne of God be his own Sonne Because Sonne of that God which the Sonne is Then may there as well be more Sonnes and then infinite Then shall he be from everlasting because God and not from everlasting because Sonne Then should the Father and the holy Ghost have been incarnate because one with the Sonne who is in carnate Then cannot the Sonne of God be man because God before But all these consequences containe but one and the same difficulty from which thy proceed as the same souldiers are showed in severall armes and the same meats served with severall sauses For when the Father Sonne and holy Ghost persons subsisting before they are distinguished by our understanding are said to be one God the ordinary discourse of reason and the language that men use inferres three substances each subsisting of it self that is three Gods that is persons of the Godhead every one of them Father Sonne and holy Ghost as God is the same with themselves supposing one God not the same supposing three persons Againe the Sonne being God as the Father and the holy Ghost are and Sonne of God it is no more then that he should be his own Sonne That he should be from everlasting and yet Sonne and no more Sonnes then he no more then that he is God and the Sonne of God both That he onely incarnate never a whit difficult then that being the same God he is neither Father nor holy Ghost To answer then this one though great difficulty First I insist that the Socinians who object it which may be said of Arius or Aetius or whosoever may be found to have objected the like cannot avoid as great inconveniences if they mean to be Christians For the Socinians pretending to honour the Sonne as the Father the Arians the Sonne and the holy Ghost both I demand what greater inconvenience there can be objected to one that pretends to be a Christian then to give the honour due to God alone to his creature Then that the Sonne of God should be God and a creature both Then that he should create himself as both God and creature Then that being made a man he should be exalted to the power and glory of God whereupon the honour of God becomes due If reason and Faith agree both together to assure us that there is a God that made all things It is not possible that any thing should be imagined more impossible then that one and the same subject should be truly qualified God and creature He that can imagine a greater contradiction a greater inconvenience a greater inconsistence then that the same thing should necessarily be what it is and yet that of it self it may be and may not be what it is Alwayes actually the same and yet capable of being what it was not sometimes The cause of all things and yet depending on that cause which it self is and so before and after it self Well may he imagine some greater inconvenience then this that our Lord Christ made a man as other men are onely conceived by the holy Ghost without man of a Virgine should be made God and indued with power and glory to which the worship and honour of the onely true God is due But let them that hope hereby to remove the stumbling block of the Trinity in Unity from before the Jews consider with themselves what satisfaction they can hope to give them or any reasonable creature by inviting them to give the honour of God to a creature called God because of that power and Glory which God hath given it above other creatures For seeing the same power and glory which God hath given it he might have
infant should go out of the World unbaptized that is it which the great solicitude of Christians that no such thing should come to passe the provision that a Lay man might baptize in case of necessity which admitted not the solemnity of ministers of the Church the grief and astonishment which followed if at any time it came to passe will inable me not onely to affirm but to inferre both the reason of originall sinne which the baptisme of Infants cureth and the authority of the Apostles which it proclaimeth It may be sayd that Pelagius himself allowed and maintained the Baptisme of Infants to bring them to the kingdom of heaven not to everlasting life But this was but to make his own cause the more desperate For had any intimation of the Scripture any Tradition or custome of the Church justified any ground of difference between the kingdome of heaven and everlasting life he might have escaped by pleading it But being disowned in it he hath left a desperate plea for those that come after him to question the Baptisme of Infants and by consequence original sinne which if he so many hundred years agoe could have found ground for he need not have stood in the list of hereticks The visible ceremonies of Baptisme which are so resolutely pleaded by his adversaries for evidence of the same are effectual to the same purpose For if it was thought requisite on behalf of infants to renounce Satan and all his Pompe and angels and instruments of this world adhering to God Iâ— it were solemn by huffing and exorcizing to use the power which God hath given his Church over unclean Spirits for the chasing of them out of Infants that were baptized Certainly those that did it were so farre from thinking that man as he is born can be capable of that good Spirit which Baptisme promiseth that they thought him to be liable to the contrary To this argument I will adde the matter of that catechizing which the ancient Church prepared those for Baptism who pretended to it as I begun to shew you in the first book for it is in a great part repeated in divers of these ancient forms of celebrating the Eucharist which are yet extant under the names of the Liturgies of Apostles and Fathers which I have named in my book of the publick service of God The ancientest of them is that which is recorded in the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 11. But you find also there VII 40. the order of Catechizing those that are to be baptized providing that they be instructed in the mercy of God that suffered not mankind being turned from him to perish but in all ages provided meanes to recall them from sinne and error to truth and righteousnesse by the Fathers first and by the Law and Prophets afterwards untill all this proving ineffectuall he spared not at length to send his Sonne And the same is the argument of that Thanksgiving which is premised to the consecration of the Eucharist in the place quoted as also in the same work afore II. 55. and in the Liturgies to which I referre you An evidence in my opinion very considerable to shew this point to belong to the substance of Christianity as the subject mater both of that instruction which is requisite to make a man a Christiane and of both Sacraments wherein the exercise thereof consisteth In the second place I alledge such an evidence for the grace of Christ as no point of Christianity can produce better from the practice of the Church For I alledge the prayers of the Church all over and from the beginning that they have alwaies contained three things The first is of thanksgivings for our Christianity that is for the coming of Christ the preaching of his Gospel and the effect thereof in converting us to be Christians The second of prayers that we may be able to persevere in that to which we are so converted and to perform what we undertake by professing our selves Christians notwithstanding the temptations of our ghostly enemies to depart from it The third and last in that these thanks and prayers are tendered to God in Christ for his sake signifying the acknowledgment of his grace in bringing us to be Christians and the expectation of those helps by which we must persevere from the consideration of his merits and suffering For as for Prayers and thanksgivings in generall it cannot be said that the offering of them can argue either the decay of our nature or the repairing of the same by Christ because those that acknowledge not Christ Jews and Mahumetans must and do use them if they pretend Religion and the service of God yea even Pagans according to their sense But to pray and give thanks to God to make men or because he hath made men Christians or for the helps of salvation which by being Christians that iâ— by Christ we attaine to as by him we attaine to be Christians must needs appear utterly groundlesse unlesse we suppose that there was no other way left for our salvation which cannot be understood by any meanes but by the fall of Adam and the consequences thereof to come to passe In the last place I alledge the decrees of the whole Church against Pelagius together with the consent of those parts of the Church which otherwise cannot be understood to be concluded by those decrees For it is manifest there was no decree of the whole Church against Pelagius as against Arius The Councils of Carthage and of Numidia that of Palestine and in aftertimes that of Orange being but particular Councils not containing the consent of the whole But this consideration in another regard turns to the advantage of the Churches cause For when those parts of the Church which are not obliged by the decrees do voluntarily and freely joyne in giving effect to them as it is manifest they did at that time by the concurrence of the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria and the great Council of Ephesus in Vossius Hist Pel. I. 38 39 47. and do since by owning the acts done against them there can be no pretense of faction to sway them to go along with those whom they are loth to offend but all must be imputed to the sense of that Christianity which hitherto they found themselves perswaded of and therefore agreed not to admit to their Communion those who acknowledged it not which is the effect of all such decrees of the Church In the mean time I forget not the records of the Church in writing that is the testimonies of those writers who going before Pelagius and giving testimonie against him cannot be thought to joyne in faction to oppresse any truth which he preached And upon this evidence I challenge both the belief of originall sinne to be necessary to the acknowledgement of the grace of Christ which Christianity professeth and also that the grace of Christ is that which inables us to begin continue and finish the good
so ballanced But chiefly because I see the subject of the dispute to be all upon the literall and mysticall sense of these Scriptures Without the knowledge whereof I am confident the Faith of a Christian is intire though the skill of a divine is nothing And for the consent of the Fathers how generall soever it be after Irenaeus I have the authority of the same Irenaeus backed by his reason in that excellent Chapter where he distinguishes between the Tradition of Faith and the skill of the Scriptures to resolve me that neither this point nor any other point which depends upon the agreement between the Old Testament and the New as this does can belong to the Faith of a Christian but onely to the skill of a divine But now this being premised and setled it will be easie for me to inferre that a state of meer nature is a thing very possible had it pleased God to appoint it by proposing no higher end then naturall happinesse no harder meanes then Originall innocence to man whom he had made The reasons premised sufficiently serving to shew that there is no contradiction in the being of that which there is so much appearance that it was indeed But I must advise you withall that I mean it upon a farre other supposition then that of the Schoole Doctors They supposing that man was created to that estate of supernaturall happinesse to which the Gospel pretendeth to regenerate Christians hold that it was Gods meer free grace that he was not created with that contradiction between the reason and appetite which the principles of his nature are of themselves apt to produce Whereupon it foloweth that concupiscence is Gods creature that is the indowment of it signifying by concupiscence that contrariety to reason which the disorder of sensuall appetite produceth A saying that hath fallen from the pen of S. Augustine and that after his businesse with Pelagius Retract I. 9. allowing what he had writ to that purpose against the Manichees in his third book de libero arbitrio which he mentioneth againe and no way disalloweth in his book de Dono perseverantiae cap. XI and XII but seemeth utterly inconsistent with the grounds which he stands upon against Pelagius For supposing contrariety and disorder in the motions of mans soul what is there in this confusion which it hath created in the doings of mankind that might not have come to passe without the fall Unlesse we suppose that a man can be reasonably madde or that concupiscence which reason boundeth not could be contained within any rule or measure not supposing any gift of God inabling reason to give bounds to it or preventing the effect of it which the supposition of pure nature alloweth us not to suppose For the very state of mortality supposing the immortality of the soul either requireth in man the conscience of integrity before God or inferreth upon him a bad expectation for the world to come And therefore though the sorrows that bring death might serve for advantage to happinesse were reasonable to govern passion in using them yet not being able they can be nothing but essayes of that displeasure of God which he is to expect in the world to come And therefore this escape of S. Augustine may seem to abate the zeale of those who would make his opinion the rule of our common Faith That which my resolution inferreth is no more then this That supposing God did not create man in an estate capable to attaine the said supernaturall happinesse he might neverthelesse had he pleased have created him in an estate of immortality without impeachment of trouble or of sorrow but not capable of further happinesse then his then life in Paradise upon earth importeth Not that I intend to say that God had been without any purpose of calling man whom he had created in this state unto the state of supernaturall grace whereby he might become capable of everlasting glory in the world to come as Christians believe themselves to be For the meaning of those that suppose this is that God purposed to exercise man first in this lower estate and having proved him and found him faithfull in it supposing Adam had not fallen to have called him afterwards to a higher condition of that immortality which we expect in the world to come upon trial of fidelity in that obedience here which is correspondent to it Whereupon it is reasonably though not necessarily consequent that this calling being to be performed by the Word of God which being afterwards incarnate is our Lord Christ and the Spirit which dwelt in him without measure our Lord Christ should have come in our flesh though Adam had not fallen to do this And this is alledged for a reason why afterwards the Law that was given to Moses covenanted expresly for no more then the happinnesse of this present life though covertly being joyned with that discipline of godlinesse which the people of God had received by tradition from their Fathers it afforded sufficient argument of the happinesse of the world to come for those who should imbrace the worship of God in spirit and truth though under the paedagogie and figures of the Law For they say it is suitable to the proceeding of God in restoring mankind that we understand him first to intend the recovering of that naturall integrity in which man was created by calling his people to that uprightnesse of civile conversation in the service of the onely true God which might be a protection to as many as under the shelter of such civile Lawes should take upon them the profession of true righteousnesse to God Intending afterwards by our Lord Christ to set on foot a treaty of the said righteousnesse upon terms of happinesse in the world to come But thesâ— things though containing nothing prejudiciall to Christianity yet not being grounded upon expresse scripture but collected by reasoning the ground and rule of Gods purpose which concerns not the truth of the Gospel whether so or not I am neither obliged to admit nor refuse So much of Gods counsel remaining alwaies visibly true That he pleased to proceed by degrees in setting his Gospel on foot by preparing his people for it by the discipline of the Law and the insufficience thereof visible by that time which he intended for the coming of our Lord Christ though we say that man was at first created in a state of supernaturall grace and capable of everlasting happinesse For still the reason of Gods proceeding by degrees will be that first there might be a time to try how great the disease was by the failing of the cure thereof by the Law before so great a Physitian as the Sonne of God came in person to visite it This onely I must adde because all this discourse proceeds upon supposition that man might have been created in an estate of meer nature if indowed with uprightnesse capable to attaine that happinesse which that estate required That
Eve was the Mother of the living And though conceived in sin yet was not be in sin or sinfull But whether every one that turns from sin to Faith turn from sinfull custome as from his Mother to life one of the twelve Prophets will be my witnesse saying shall I give my first-born for impiety the fruit of my belly for the sin of my Soul He traduceth not him that said Increase and multiply but he calleth the first inclinations from our birth by which we are ignorant of God impieties He saith most truly that they cannot render a reason how we are born under Adams curse but by charging God He granteth actuall sin in conception but that not the sin of the Child that is conceived He saith the custome of sin may be our Mother Eve in the mysticall sense of David But he ascribeth it to those first motions from our birth which make mankind ignorant of God till they turn to Christianity Whether this be my plea or no let him that hath perused the Premises judge This same is to be said of S. Chrysostome in his Homily ad Neophytos denying that Infants are baptized because they are polluted with sin To wit that he appropriateth the name of sin to actuall sin But as Clemens acknowledges the first motions that we have from our birth to tend to ignorance of God So S. Chrysostome Hom. XI in VI. ad Rom. Hom. XIII in VII ad Rom. cleerly ascribes the coming in of concupiscence to Adams sin or rather to the sentence of mortality inflicted by God upon it wherein he is followed by Theodoret in V. ad Rom. observing that the want of things necessary to the sustenance of our mortality provokes excesses and that sins If this reason can generally hold so that all concupiscence may be said to be the consequence of mortality Christianity will be sound the necessity of Christs coming for the repair of Adams fall remaining the same But this is the reason why the same S. Chrysostome Hom. X. in VI. ad Rom. when S. Paul saith By one mans disobedience many are made sinners understandeth by sinners liable to death Concupiscence wherein Originall sinne consisteth as I have shewed being the consequence of mortality according to S. Chrysostome As for those that censure books at Oxford if they like not this I demand but one thing what they think of Zuinglius his Writings For I suppose none of them believes that Zuinglius holds originall sinne to be properly sinne or that infants are damned for it though whether they come to everlasting life or no notwithstanding their concupiscence which they are born with I find not that he saith Let them therefore choose whether they will censure Zuinglius his bookes or professe that they have the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons And therefore I do not understand why I should make any more of this difference of language then of that which was on foot in the ancient Church about the terms of hypostasis in the blessed Trinity among those who haâ—tily adhered to the Faith of the Church And I conceive I may compare it with the difference between the Latine and the Greek Church about the procession of the Holy Ghost whether from the Father and the Sonne oâ— from the Father by the Sonne For though I do believe with the Western Church that he proceedeth from both Yet the Eastern Church acknowledging as it doth from the Father by the Sonne If it had been in me the matter should never have come to a breach in the Church about that difference Even so the terme of Originall sinne being received in the Western Church to exclude the heresie of Pelagius I do not intend to take offence at the using or give offence by the refusing of it But I shall not therefore condemn those times or persons of the Church that used it not as unsound or defective in the Faith the Tradition whereof is not to be derived but by that which all parts agree in professing As for the punishment of everlasting torments upon infants that depart with it it is a thing utterly past my capacity to understand how it concerns the necessity of Christs coming that those infants who are not cured by it should be thought liable to them Would his death be in vaine would the Grace which it purchaseth be unnecessary unlesse those infants that have committed no actuall sinne go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels Shall the corruption of our nature by the fall of Adam be counted a fable unlesse I be able to maintaine that infants are there or shew where they are if not there Or will any man undertake to shew me that consent of the whole Church in this point which is visible by the premises as concerning that corruption of nature which I challenge to be mater of Faith It is not to be denied that S. Augustine and enow after him have maintained it and perhaps thought that the Faith cannot be maintained otherwise But can that therefore be the Tradition of the whole Church which Doctors allowed by the Church do not believe In this as in other instances we see a difference between maters of Faith and Ecclesiasticall doctrines of which you have a Book of Gernadius intituled dâ— dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis For such positions as passe without offense when they are held and professed by such as injoy the communion of the Church or more then so rank of authority in it must necessarily be counted doctrines of the Church And yet if it appear that the contrary hath been held other whiles and else where they do not oblige our belief as matters of Faith As for the article of the Church of England which ascribeth the desert of Gods wrath and damnation to Originall sinne â— conceive it is alwaies the duty of every sonne of the Church so to interpret so to limit or to extend the acts of the Church of England that is the sense of them that it may agree with the Faith of the Catholick Church Because all such acts serve and are to serve onely to maintaine the Church of England a member thereof by maintaining the Faith of it How much more at this time that unity and communion which these acts tendred to maintain amongst our selves being irrecoverably violated by men equally concerned in the cherishing of it For admitting the Faith and the Laws of the primitive Church what can any Church allege why they are not one with us Not admitting them what can we alledge why we are not one with others It followeth therefore of necessity that the wrath of God and damnation which Originall sin deserveth according to the Article of the Church of England be confined to the losse and coming short of that salvation to which the first Adam being appointed the second Adam hath restored us There being no more to be had either by necessary consequence from the Scripture or by Tradition
in mind to adde to the evidence for this all that I said in the beginning of this book to show that the condition of the covenant of grace implyeth a resolution generally to obay all that Christianity injoyneth For whatsoever delight in the true good God may prevent and determine the will with as prevent it he may and doth so as to take most certaine effect it must have in it the force of choice upon deliberation that makes God in steade of the world the utmost end of all a mans actions And in virtue of this choice whatsoever is done in prosecution of it consisteth in the like freedome of preferring it before the difficulties that impeach it which therefore he that will may follow and faile of his purpose He that might have transgressed and did not his goods shall be firme saith Ecclesiasticus XXXI 10. 11. Christianity then supposeth free choice as well to doe rather then not to doe as to doe this rather then that But Christianity cannot suppose this freedome till it can suppose the reason why every thing is to be done to appeare For that is it which must determine the indifference of mans will to proceede And therefore if there be any thing which without Christianity a man under Original sinne stands not convinced that it is to be done though supposing Christianity his freedome may extend to it yet not supposing the same it doth not This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XXIII A man is able to doe things truely honest under Originall sin But not to make God the end of all his doings How all the actions of the Gentiles are sins They are accountable onely for the Law of nature How all men have or have not Grace sufficient to save NOw to the second part of my position I say that though notwithstanding the inclination of Originall concupiscnce a man is able to do any kinde of act towards himselfe towards all other men or towards God yet is he not able to doe any for that reason for which it is indeed to be don And therefore that he is by his birth slave to sin and without the grace of Christ cannot become free of that bondage The first part of this position stands upon the words of S Paul Rom. XI 14 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who show the worke of the Law written in their hearts their consciences bearing witnesse with them and their thoughts afterwards interchangeable accusing or excusing I know S Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius will have this to be said of the Gentiles that had been converted to Christianity But having shewed that the interpretation of the Scripture is not subject to the authority or judgâ—ment of particular Doctors and knowing that the tradition of the Church neither went before them nor hath followed after them to make the position upon which their interpretation proceeds a point of faith I follow pâ—remptory reason from the processe of S. Pauleâ— discourse Who having conclued the Gentiles to be liable to Gods judgement in case they imbrace not Christianity comeing to doe tâ—e like for the Jewes upon a supposition which he takes to be evident upon experience as appealing to their own consciences in it that they kept not Gods Law by which they hoped to be saved Proceeâ—s to compare with them the Gentiles whom he had convicted afore that he may prove the Jewes to have as much need of the Gospell as he had proved the Gentiles to have He saith then that the Gentiles have also a law of God which is the sense of Gods will which nature workes in their hearts And that as the Jewes did many things according to Gods written Law so did the Gentiles according to the Law of nature But if they could say that the Gentiles kept not the law of nature as hitherto he had proved No lesse might the Gentiles say that they kept not the Law by which they pretended to be righteous before God This you shall easily perceive to be S. Pauls businesse if you compare that which he writes Rom. XI 12 13. 17. 24. concerning the Jewes with that which went afore from Rom. I. 18. concerning the Gentiles Indeed when the Apostle afterwards compares the circumcision of the heart which makes a spiritual Jew with the Gentile who in his uncircumcision doth the same righteous things of the Law which the said spirituall Jew doth Rom. 11. 25 29. as I acknowledge that there is no spirituall Jew by the letter of the law but by the grace of the Gospell which though covertly had course and took effect though in a lesse measure under the Law so I must acknowledg that none but the Gentiles converted to Christianity can be compared to him But it is no prejudice to the Apostels argument to say that the Gentile is capable of that by the Gospell which the Jew could not boast of by the Law but by the grace of the Gospell under the Law Whereas if the apostle do not convict the Jew to have need of the Gospell by showing the Gentile to beere the same fruits by the Law of nature which the Jew brought forth by the law of Moses be leaves him utterly unconvicted of the necessity God had to bring in the gospell for the salvation of the Jew aswell as of the Gentile And therefore when S. Paul names the things of the Law he compâ—â—â—eth as weâ—l â—hoseduties that concerne God as those which concerne our selves and our neighbours Agreeing herein with the experience of all ages and nations whâ—ch allowes religion towards God to be a Law of all Nations as well as the â—ifference between right and wrong in civill contracts between honest â—nd shâ—mefull in mens private actions to be impressed by God upon their hearts from thence expressed in their Lawes and customes And truly it can by no meanes be denied that the difference of three sorts of good things honesta utilia â— jucunda things honest usefull and pleasurable is both understood and admitted amongst heathen nations That is to say that heathen nations doe acknowledg that there are some things which of themselves agreeing with the dignity of mans nature are more worthy to be imbraced then those which present us either with profit or pleasure without consideration of what beseemes us otherwise â—o which assuming this as evident by experience of the world that the reason of that which is honest or honourable as sutable with the dignity worth of mans excellency is not alwaies contradicted in occasions of action either by profit or pleasure there will be no possible reason for any man to deny that notwithstanding Originall concupiscence a man may be led by reason of honesty to do that which it requireth Whereof we have invincible evidence not onely in the Philosophy of the Greeks and the Civility of the Romans
bound by natural equity to accept that for full satisfaction which makes up his whole intresse when civile Law obliâ—es him not Makes the tender of Christ no lesse the substitute to our payment of that debt which Gods Law requireth for how is it lesse fit to be tendred when it is not due to be accepted then when it is no lesse able to fulfill Gods desire seeing nothing can be imagined more acceptable to him then the voluntary obedience of his own sonne consisting in those sufferings wherein the greatest virtue that mans nature is capable of was seen and tending to the redemption of mankind which his love to his creature inclined him so much â—o desire as his wisdome found to comport with his native goodnesse and the exercise of his justice I shall not here as in other points stand to clear the Faith of the Catholike Church When Pelagius is alleged for one that held not the satisfaction of Christ it is plain enough that it can have no footing in or allowance from the authority of the Church which hath disclaimed Pâ—lagius Onely we may take notice how well the evidence which the witnesse and practice of the Church renders to the rule of Faith is understood by them who in stead of alledging some allowance of the Church by some person of noted credit openly professing it and nevertheless esteemed to be of the Church name us one that was cast out of the Church for holding it whether expresly or by consequence As for Lactantius who alleging the suffering of Christ for our example addes further neverthelesse pro crimine nostro for our crime Instit IV. 23 24 26. Though I might safely have said as afore that a word of his upon the by may well have past without censure because his credit was not such in the Church as to create appearance of offense Yet I shall not need to have recourse to this answer his own words having given so much advantage for a fair interpretation of his meaning in the sense of the Church As for Pâ—trus Abailardus that is thought to have said something to the same purpose I shall not need to insist what his opinion was For as I allow that he lived in such an age when something that is true might be entertained with the censure of the Church So when it is said to be in a point wherein he is pâ—rtizane with Pelagius the Church that condemned him must needs in condemning him for iâ— be partizane with the Church that condemned Pelagius I will onely allege here a doctrine which I take to be generally received by the ancient Fathers of the Church That the devil by bringing Christ to death that had not sinned forfeited that power of death which the Apostle speakes of Heb. II. 14. to wit that which he had over man that had sinned in bringing him to death And I allege it because the Socinians seem to take it for granted that the Church is now ashamed to maintaine this which I confesse I am not For if the devil be Prince of this World as our Saviour calls him John XIV 30. because he is imployed by God as his Goaler or the executioner of those judgements to which he abandons those that forsake him by giving them up to his temptations shall we not understand the justice of God to be seen towards him in limiting this imployment as under the grace of Christ we believe it is limited in consideration of his attempting upon Christ beyond his commission because without right he being without sinne And therefore the justice of God having appointed him this imployment and this justice satisfied by the obedience of Christ it is but due consequence that this imployment in which the principality of this World consisteth should become forfeit and voâ—de so farre as the Grace of Christ determineth it By virtue of which reason our Lord Christ rising from death because not having sinned he could not be â—â—ld by death drawes after him all that upon the sound of his Gospel imbrace the profession of Christianity CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himself without the coming of Christ The promises of the Gospel depend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need not suffer â—ell paâ—nes that we might not The opinion that maketh justifying Faith to be trust in God not true Yet not prejudiciall to the Faith The decree of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not prejudiciall to the Faith As also that of Socinus I Will not leave this point till I have inferred from that which hath been said the resolution of two or three points in question necessarily following upon it And first that though as I have said it is impossible for the wit of man to propose any course for the reconciling of men to God by which the glory of God in the exercise of his divine perfections should have been more seen then is that which it pleased God to take Yet was it not impossible for his divine wisdome to have taken other courses to effect the same his glory remaining inâ—â—re according as S. Augustine hath long since resolved Though to the great displeasure of all them who distinguish not the imagination of immediate satisfaction by the death of Christ for the sinnes of them that shall be saved from that dispensation in the Originall Law of God which the Gospel declareth to all that imbrace the terms of it To the effect whereof I have showed that God provided and accepted it For if God did not provide noâ— accept de facto the death of Christ for immediate satisfaction to his vindicative justice in behalf of their sinnes that shall be saved Then was he not tied in point of right to seek that satisfaction for the same either from Christ or from us And truly this opinion that God was tied to execute his vindicative justice either upon Christ or us seems to represent God to the fansies of Christians as taking content in the evils and torments which Christ suffered that being the onely recompense that vindicative justice seeks without consideration of that perfect obedience and zeale to Gods glory in the saving of his creature together with his justice and holinesse in regard whereof God indeed accepteth the same Now though it be necessary for the maintenance of Christianity to say that the course which God takeâ—h for the reconciling of man to himself according to it preserveth his glory intire as being agreeable to his divine perfections For to say that man cannot propose a course more for his glory then that which it advanceth is rather honourable for Christianity then necessary for the maintenance of the truth of it yet to say that Gods wisdome in designing this course according to the exigence of all his perfections is so exhausted and equalled by the work of it as it were that his own wisdome could have designed no other course to attaine tâ—e same end preserving
assure us of the necessity and efficacy of the works of humiliation and mortification for sinne in appeasing the wrath and recovering the favour of God in obtaining forgivenesse of sinne and restoring to the state of Grace which the ancient Church calleth satisfying for sinne By the same meanes it remaines manifest that these satisfactions are neither injoyned grievous sinners by the Scriptures nor notorious sinners by the Church out of any intent of extinguishing a debt of temporal punishment remaining after the sinne is pardoned That God when he gave the Gospell might have reserved a debt of temporall punishment upon them whose sinne he pardoneth by virtue of it I question not That he hath reserved it can never be proved the penalties which he exerciseth his children with being rather chastisements of love then revenges of wrath That this debt if not extinguished here by satisfaction injoyned in Penance remaines for Purgatory in the world to come I cannot here dispuâ—â— not having yet considered the effect of the keyes of the Church in Penance And therefore for the ground of it which must come from hence I shall conclude according to the premises That the condition which the Gospel requireth to bring a man to the state of Gods grace for remission of sinnes and right to everlasting life in point of conscience as to God as well as in point of profession as to the Church is presupposed to every mans being a Christian and a member of the Church With this difference indeed between them that are invited by the Church to be Christians and them who being Christians shall relapse to those finnes which by their Christianity they professe to forsake That to those that are without the cure of sinne is tendered meerly as Physick which the Physitian hath no meanes to constraine a man to take but his own interesse But to those that are within out of that authority and jurisdiction which the Corporation of the Church foundeth The last resolution whereof though it end in the interest of a mans own good which moveth him to professe Christianity yet that profession having ingaged him to be a Christiane by it he standes bound to stand to the judgement of the Church in all things within the authority of it Now if the Church ought to presume that he who is admitted to the communion thereof is qualified for remission of sinne before he be restored to it then cannot a man by being restored to the communion of the Church become qualified for it unlesse it can be said that the absolution of the Church can presuppose that which it effecteth which without a contradiction cannot be said The Church then pardons not sinne otherwise then as by the power of the keyes obliging the relapsed to use that cure which it prescribeth upon presumption of the cure wrought it warranteth pardon as having effected that disposition which qualifieth a man for it So that all the satisfaction that the Church can have that a man is qualified for pardon proceeds upon a presumption that God first is satisfied by the conversion of a sinner to that disposition which he requireth to remission of sin But evidently in consideration of our Lord Christ because by the Gospel whereof he is the subject As for the merit of Christian mens workes in relation to the world to come if it be considered on one hand how many wayes the Scripture declareth that it is impossible for any creature of God to come before hand with him that made it because his allsufficience allowes him not capable of any advantage that he may receive from it on the other hand that by originall concupiscence we are utterly disabled to satisfie for that in which we are come behind hand with God and for the future to satisfy that originall rule of righteousnesse due from man to God which our creation establisheth I shall not need to use many words in a plaine case that by the originall Law of God no man can merit the reward of everlasting life But by the promise of the Gospell God is tied to reward them with it For on the other side it is most evident that the Scriptures as well of the New Testament as of the Old in which I have showed how that salvation which we attaine by the Gospel is intimated that the favour of God and everlasting life is the prize of that gole the crown of that conquest the wage of that good â—ight of Faith which a Christian in this warfare upon earth professeth The Scriptures that containe this sense being every where so expresse and so well known that I conceive I do the Reader an ease in sparing him the paines of reading them here againe after so many canvases But besides the maine point established at the beginning of this Book inforces inevitably all that this resolution imports For if God have by the Gospell imposed upon Christians the condition of new obedience which Christians through his grace by Christ are able to tender him to recompense them with such a reward standes by his free promise ingaged to it in consideration of that new obedience which he requires This is the utmost which the name of merit can inforce understanding it to be grounded upon the promise of God declared by the Gospell which nothing but his own free grace designed through and in consideration of our Lord Christ before all consideration of any new obedience of Christians which wholly dependeth upon the same could ever have moved him to set on foote For having said before that a meritorious cause can have no place in respect of God otherwise then as he designes us good in consideration of good though the good he considers be originally his own gift whereas men are obliged in reason and justice to reward that good which themselves are prevented with originally as to them moving and obliging them to reward it but the merit of heaven never so fully ascribed to the workes of Christians who are obliged to understand it so to be ascribed by virtue of the Covenant of Grace it can be understood to signify no more then a quality which it requireth upon which the reward becomes due by virtue of that promise which requireth it And that this is the sense of the Catholike Church among infinite arguments this is enough to demonstrate Because whereas it is very well known that the Latine Fathers do attribute the stile and virtue of merits and meriting at Gods hands to the workes of Christians in respect to everlasting life the Greek Fathers in whose mouthes the word could not be expressing the same sense in such termes as their own language affords For who ever undertook to show any difference of sense between them those of the Reformation have alwayes maintainâ—d that their sense is the same with the sense of the ancient Church in the mouth of the Fathers For if in their mouth that word can import no prejudice to Christianity neither can it import
Certainly the word Do this is that which the whole action is grounded upon as pretending to execute it and therefore the effect of it so far as consecrating the Eucharist is already come to passe when the Church may say This is our Lords Body this is his bloud as our Lord said This is my body this is my bloud But the strength of this resolution I confesse lies in the consent of the Church and those circumstances visible in the practice thereof which to them that observe them with reason are manifest evidences of this sense I have observed in a Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church p. 347-370 the passâ—ges of divers of the most ancient Writers of the Church in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving thanks is put for consecrating the Eucharist Unto which adde the words of Irenaeus in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 20. concerning the then Bishop of Rome Anicetus when Polycarpus was there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hee gave way to Polycarpus to celebrate the Eucharist For seeing that this Sacrament that is the Elements consecrated are called the Eucharist all over the Church from this thanks-giving the act thereof passing upon them to give them by way of Metonymie this name What can be more reasonable than to grant that it is this act and not the rehersal of the words of the Gospel which relate what our Lord did and said in instituting as well as celebrating it by which the consecâ—ation is performed Though on the oâ—her side I insist that these words have alwayes been rehearsed by the Church in consecrating the Eucharist and ought still to be frequented and among them those which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body This is my bloud which now the whole School thinks to be the onely operâ—tive words in that change which the making of the Elemâ—nts to become the Sacrament imports I have also showed in the same place that S. Paul when hee saith 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. For if thou blesse by the Spirit hee that fills the place of an Idâ—ot or private perâ—on how shall hee say the Amen upon this thanks-giving For hee knoweth not what thou sayest For thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified by blessing and giving thanks means the consecrating of the Eucharist which thoâ—e that hâ—d the grâ—ce of Languages among the Corinthians undertook then to do in unknown tongues and are therefore reproved by the Apostle Because it may appear by the constant practice of the whole Church that it ended with an Amen of the people which S. Paul therefore calls the Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that was used in that case And also that when hee writeth to Timothy I exhort therefore first of all to make supplications prayers intercessions thanks-givings for all men For Kings and all that are in eminence that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and gravity hee intends to châ—rge that at the celebration of the Eucharist which here hee calleth Thanks-givings prayers be made as for all states of men so especially for publick Powers and Princes Because S. Augustine S. Ambrose and the Author de Vocatione Gentium I. 12. do expresly testifie unto us that the custome which the Church then and always afore and since hath had to do this came from this Ordinance of S. Paul and containeth the fulfilling of it And because it is manifest by all the forms of Liturgie in all Churches that are yet extant and by the mention made of the maner of it upon occasion in the writings of the Fathers that the Eucharist was never to be celebrated without prayer for all states of Christs Church And this indeed is a great part of the evidence which I pretend There are extant yet in several Languages several Liturgies that is forms of that complete Service of God by Psalmes and Lessons and Sermons and Prayers the Crown whereof was the Eucharist as that of S. Mark of S. James of S. Peter S. Basil S. Chrysostome which are the forms that were used in their Churches of Alexandria Jerusalem Rome Caesarea Constantinople though not as they had from the beginning appointed but as Prelates of authority and credit had thought fit to adde to or take froâ— or châ—nge that which they from the beginning had appointed There is besides the Canon of the Roman Masse that is the Canonical or Regular Prayâ—r which the Eucharist is consecrated with which is the same in Latine with that of S. Peter in Greek upon the mater as of a truth the Greek is but the Translation of the Latine it seems for the use of these Greeks in Italy that follow the Church of Rome and that of S. Ambrose at Milane three translated out of Arâ—biâ—k by the Mâ—ronites at Rome the Ethiopick translated â—into Latine many Canons called by them Anaphora in the Maronites Missal lately printed at Rome in the Syriack one of the Christians of S. Thomas in the East-Indies in Latine In all these you shall observe a Prayer to begin where the Deacon formerly saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts the people answered Habemus ad Dominum Wee lift them up unto the Lord. The subject of it is at least where any length is allowed it to praise God for creating the world and maintaining Man-kind through his providence with the fruits of the earth Then after acknowledgement of Adams Fall for using first those means of reclaiming Man-kind unto God which wee find by the Scriptures that it pleased God to use under the Law of Nature first by the Patriarches then under the Law of Moses by the Prophets then sending our Lord Christ to redeem the world Upon which occasion rehearsing how hee instituted the Eucharist at his last Supper prayer is made that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may sanctifie them to become the body and bloud of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with his Grace This being so visible in so many of these Liturgies shall wee say that all that followes after the Deacons warning let us give thanks makes up that which the ancient Church after S. Paul by a peculiar term of art as it were calls the Eucharist or Thanksgiving Or that the Sacrament which taketh the name from it is consecrated onely by rehearsing those words which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body this is my bloud Especially all reason in the world inforcing that the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being that which God promiseth upon the observation and performance of his institution and appointment cannot be ascribed to any thing else In the Latine Masse before the rehersal of the Institution they pray thus Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis
repaired but by the second coming of the second Adam and those helps of grace which by his obedience in the flesh he purchased to inable us to imbrace and undertake the condition proposed and to proceed in the performance of it to that which God accepteth In fine I have showed that the Sacrament of Baptism is that visible act which legally determineth and limiteth that profession of Christianity which intitleth to the Kingdom of God as consigning the profession of a Christian unto the hands of the Church by the means whereof Christianity is conveyed to us Therefore having showed these things I have no reason to think my selfe obliged to unty these Cobwebs thred by thred which I can sweep away at once with this besome Onely I will stand here so long as to admire whether the boldnesse or ignorance of these new dogmatists of new Religions be the greater when I see the baptism of John counted among the Ceremonies of the old Law for a foundation of this new doctrine of Baptisms never heard of by any Christian till this blessed Reformation was on foot which must be said à fortiori of that Baptism by water which our Lord Christ instituted by them that esteem it not the same Is it possible that any man that believes Christianity to be the Religion now in force to salvation by Gods appointment in opposition to Judaism should imagine that John the Baptist sent to declare our Lord to be the Christ that was sent of God to introduce it to the voiding of Moses Law should set on foot that Baptism whereby he prepared his Disciples for Christ or brought them to Christ by virtue of that Law which he intended to void Is it not essentiall to all the observations of the old Law that they be thought to be figurative of Christ to come at least supposing Christianity Can that Baptism figure Christ to come the intent whereof supposed him to be already come pretending to prepare his Disciples to receive him that was come But whether we say the Baptism of Christ was the same with Johns Baptism or another to say the Apostles of Christ when they baptize with water intended to figure that the Messias was coming from whom they had their commission to Baptize would be no lesse then a spice of madnesse I will also stay so long for Socinus as to answer that suspition which he draws from the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. I. 13 -17 to his purpose Is Christ divided was Paul crucified for you or were ye baptized into the name of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you but Criâ—pus and Gaius that no man say that I baptize in my oâ—n name yet I baptized also the house of Stephans further whither I baptized any I know not For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel If there were any thing in these words to intimate that the precept of baptizing is not of peâ—emptory and perpetuall necessity then must they signifie more then that it was not necessary that it should be done by S. Pauls own hands which is all they contain For he that would say that which was not necessary to be done by S. Paul was not necessary to be done would deserve to be laught at for his pains The question is then was any of them whom S. Paul baptized not left unbaptized or not If not how is it inferred that a man need not be baptized now because then they were not baptized by S. Paul If so how comes Socinus to grant that those who were first converted to Christianity were to be baptized And therefore before Socinus or any man go about to teach a new Religion it were fit for him to learn from the custome and practice of the Church that there is a difference between authority in ordering and ministery in executing And from the custome of the world that what a man does by his minister or officer that he does himselfe in Law though another do it in point of nature Which being supposed a little reason will serve to inferre that the Apostles being principal in the commission of the Gospell were to be imployed in the principall part of it that is in reducing men to Christianity And therefore so farre as that required their attendance inferiour offices which depended upon their order were to be left to the execution of their Ministers But to both these Heresies I say at once in the last place that they belie the very ground which they professe to be Christians The reason why the motives of faith cannot be doubted for truth is because all that are Christians have taken upon them their Christianity for a Law and entred into a communion and body of the Church to live and communicate in the faith and service of God according to certain Laws upon evidence that they come indeed from God Therefore that which all this body hath taken upon it to observe for Law from the beginning and constantly observed till Socinus his or the Antinomians time that belonged to the matter of Christianity as evidently as it is evident that the motives of Christianity recorded in the Scriptures are true which are therefore evidently true because it is evident that they have moved the world to receive Christianity which could not have been done had they been false For if all Christians could be deceived to believe that their Christianity requireth them to be Baptized if they will be saved why might they not be deceived to believe that those things were truly one which the Scripture alledgeth to evidence the Gospell to come from God when as indeed they were not Which is to say that who so pretends to void that which the whole Church observeth for a Law must not think that he can do it by showing that it is not commanded in the Scriptures until he can show that it is come into the Church not according to right having been from the beginning otherwise He must therefore first refuse all that I have said in the first Book to demonstrate that the Church alwaies was from the beginning one body governed by certain Laws originally proceeding from the Apostles by whom power was left it to determine and limite further all that the future estate thereof should require to be further determined for the maintaining of unity in the communion of the Church For granting this it will be impossible to show how so great a body should agree to receive that for a Law and that necessary to salvation as Baptism hath alwayes been esteemed which they received not for such at the beginning from our Lord and his Apostles CHAP. VII The ground of baptizing Infants Originall sinne though not instituted till Christ rose again No other cure for it Infants of Christians may be Disciples are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel ANd these same are the reasons that I must have recourse to now that
and ruled the whole Church and might as easily make his corruptions generall as Christ Christianity But if it were meerly their saying to make it a Tradition of the Apostles what shall we say of Pelagius For they must pardon me who think that the hatred of his Heresie brought the baptism of Infants into force More generall it might deservedly make it For by the condemning of his Heresie the danger of Infants going out of the world was conâ—eâ—â—ed But it was the Baptism of Infants being in force afore that made his opinion an Heresie as making the necessity of Baptism visible as supposed by all Christians and therefore the truth of Original sin Pelagius was not so very a fool as they imagine If all the knowledge that a man of his time could get by seeing all parts of the Church would have served for an exception to the authority of the baptism of Infants he might have wrangled with his adverse party about the exposition of those Scriptures which are alleadged in the point till this day and his opinion have found footing in the Church But because he could not sâ—op mens eyes so as not to see what they saw we may for wantonnesse betray the cause of God by letting the interpretation of the Scriptures loose to every mans fancy which God had appointed to be confined within the Tradition of his Apostles but they could not chuse but condemn that position which the visible practice of the Church proclaimed to be Heresie Thus farre then I proceed upon the Tradition of the Apostles to make the Baptism of Infants necessary in case of necessity that is of danger of death But I that condemn not the ancients for disputing that it ought not to be generall nor the Greek Church for reserving it till years of discretion supposing the means of it reasonably secured in that case am not like to attribute the necessity of baptizing all Infants which the present Laws of the Church do introduce to the tradition of the Apostles but to the original power of the Church founded upon the constitution thereof in determining the circumstances of those offices which being incumbent upon the Church are not determined by any law of either of his Apostles For though I take not upon me to say that there can no reason be given why this particular should not now be so determined as we see it is who do acknowledge great reasons to have been alleadged by the ancients to the contrary for their time yet I see so many ways for the misunderstanding and the neglect of Christianity to creep upon the Church that I cannot see sufficient reason why the Church should trust the conscience of particular Christians whom it concerned to see to the baptism of all Infants that might come into that case now that the world was come into the Church and that therefore the Church could not have the like presumption of the conscience of all that professed Christianity in the discharge of an office of that concernment to that which it might reasonably have while it was under persecution and men could not be thought to imbrace Christianity but for conscience sake And therefore as I do maintain it alwaies to have been within the lawfull power of the Church to make a generall Law as now it is so I must averre that there was just reason and ground for the exercise of that power in determining this point whither as in the East with some toleration of those whom they had confidence in for seeing to the baptizing of their Infants in danger of death or generally as in the West to see the occasion of mischiefe and scandall prevented by doing it presently after birth And therefore those that forsake the unity of the Church â—ather then be subject to a Law which it may lawfully make as I have showed if that which hath been resolved of the difference between Heresie and Schism be true cannot avoid being schismaticks As for the ground of that opinion which moves them to break up the seal of God marked upon those that are baptized unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity by baptizing them anew to the hope of salvation without the obligation of Christianity whether they are to be counted Hereticks therefore or not let who will dispute This I may justly inferre they take as sure a course to murther the souls of those whom they baptize again as of those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized There remains two questions which seem to make this resolution hard to believe If there be no salvation without Baptism no not for the Infants of Christians it is demanded what becomes of their souls and whither they go I must needs allow that those ancient and later Divines alledged by Cassander and our Hooker after him had reason to entertain a charitable hope of the happinesse of those who being prevented by the inevitable casualties of mans life of attaining the Sacrament of Baptism are accompanied out of the world by the prayers of Christian Parents commending them to God with the same affections wherewith they alwaies vowed them to God by bringing them to Christianity so soon as they should become capable to be instructed in it But if I will stand to the bounds of Gods revealed will I must also say that this hope is presumed without book that is without any Law of God to warrant the effect of it For if God promise the Kingdom of heaven to Infants that depart after Baptism as the reasons premised and the practice of the Church make evidence nothing hindreth the mercy of God to extend to those that depart without it where nothing hindreth the power of his grace to regenerate without the Sacrament those whom he hath not expressed that he will not regenerate But this shall not proceed from any obligation of his Covenant of Grace nor tend to make good the evidence thereof which the practice of the Church createth And therefore shall make onely a presumption of what may be and not of what is I find that Arminius had further a doubtful conceit that all Infants departing without Baptism are to be saved by the virtue of Gods second Covenant and the death of Christ upon which it is grounded God having extended both as farre as sinne by the first Adam extendeth But the publication of the second Covenant and the intent of Christs death upon which it is grounded being conditional as hath been showed I suppose it is not enough to intitle Infants to the benefit thereof that they never did any thing to refuse it Otherwise what cause is there why all the Gentiles that go out of the world without hearing of Christianity should not be saved by virtue of it notwithstanding all that they sinne against the Law of nature Because the New Covenant is to take effect where it is not refuted and sinnes against the Law of nature cannot be constrained as a refusall of the
But he that thinketh that within the Church the power of the Keys goes no further then Preaching and clearing the scandall of notorious offences can give no reason why those that arâ— converted to believe Christianity by Preaching the Gospel should be bound by their own profession to oblige themselves to it and by that means to enâ—â—r the â—ociety of the Church For they are as well certified before baptism as after that without repentance and conversion from sinne there is no remission of sinne or hope of everlasting life which if a mâ—n be left to his own choice whether he will imbrace or not after that he is come into the Church why not afore Why came he into the Church Or why was there provision made that the Church should be a corporation the communion whereof all Christians should be be bound to hold â—nd imbrace Therefore our Lord when he declares the depositing of the same Keyes or power of loosing and binding with his Church which he he gave elsewhere to S. Peter and the rest of his Disciples Maâ— XVIII 15-20 commanding that he who will not hear the Church be to the Church as Publicâ—ns und Sinners were then to the Jews inferreth that Whatsoever they should bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever they should loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And again that where two of you that is of the Church shall agree upon any thing to ask it it shall be done for you by my Eather in heaven Where reducing him that heareth not the Church into the State of a Publican or a sinner to the Jews being the binding of sinne as to the Church upon supposition that he is bound by it already as to God in order to the loosing of the same as to the Church upon supposition that it is first loosed as to God is something else besides preaching or clearing the scandal of notorious sinne And if our Lord by inferring immediately a generall promise of hearing the prayer of Christians intend to intimate that he would accept of the prayerâ— of the Church for the reconciling of those whose sinnes were bound as I observed afore then of necessity something more then showing the guilt of sinne by Preaching is referred to the Church in procuring the loosing of him that is bound from the debt of sinne not from the scandall of it And what is this but that which we see done by S. Paul and by the Church of Corinth in obedience to S. Pauls commands concerning him that had maried his Fatherâ— widow 1 Cor. V. 2 -2 Cor. II. 5-11 VII 8-11 For when S. Paul blames them that they did not all mourn that he who had done the act might be removed fâ—om among them Certainly he means that he who had done the act was to mourn so much more that he might be restored unto them again For so it came to passe and upon such terms he is restored If any man hath grieved it is not me that he hath grieved but in part that I may not charge you all Enough to such a one is this rebuke of many So that contrariwise ye ought rather to pardon and comfort such a one least he be swallowed up with abundance of sorrow The reason followes For I see that that leter of mine grievâ—d you though but for a time Now I am glad not that I grieved you but that you were grieved to repentance For ye were grieved according to God that ye might in nothing be punished as from us For the sorrow that is according to God worketh repentance to salvation not to be repentâ—th of But the sorrow of the world worketh death I demand whether the repentance which S. Pauls censure brought forth were the repentance of that Church or the repentance of both the person guilty and of the Church For without question if this were the crime and that he was born out in it by a faction in the Church the act whereof prevailing redounds to the account of the whole then S. Paul justly blames the Church because they had not cleared their hands of it by putting froâ— them the guilty person with demonstration of â—hat sorrow which might evidence their adherence to the Christianity which they had once professed And accordingly if the Church were grieved to repentance such as procureth salvation being according to God and that having so done they are injoyned to restore the guilty person Therefore that the guilty person had been reduced to so much more sorrow as the crime concerned him more and that this sorrow also was repentance to salvation according to God wrought by the censure inflicted upon him by S. Pauls Bpistle Whether then S. Paul require them to re-admit him least Satan should get advantage upon the Church by this breach whose conceits we are not ignorant of saith S. Paul and least the party should be swallowed up with excessive sorrow Or least the party by dispair of reconcilement with the Church should be reduced to renounce Christianity or a division be made in the Church from under the authority of S. Paul This he plainly declares that he pardons the man whom they pardon in the person of Christ that no such thing come to passe That is acting by Apostolical commission according to which that which any mans Apostle or Commissary did was as if himself did it So that either we suppose the repentance wrought by the censure to be sufficiently evidenced or that S. Pauls commission is not trustily discharged This is more then then preaching the Gospel or removing offence from before the Church It is removing the sinne by procuring repentance and thereupon assuring of pardon which seems not well assured when there is not competent means used much lesse the effect of the means visible in procuring repentance But if a Physitian onely prescribing and applying the means of curing a disease is said to cure it much more the Church not onely prescribing and applying the means of curing sinne by the exercise of repentance in prayer with fastinâ— and alms-deeds but also constraining the sick person effectually to use the cure prescribed by excluding him the communion of the Church so long as he refuses to use it Now when S. Paul commandeth to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirâ—t may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. V. 5. proving the powing of Excommunication necessary to the constitution and being of the Church and that who so is excommunicate falls under the power of Satan as excluded Gods Church I alledged that those miraculous operations which God gave the Church undâ—r the Apoâ—tles to witnesse the truth of Christianity by the evidene of his presence in the same were seen upon those which were cast out of it And that in that regard this man is commanded to be delivered to Satan The destruction of the flesh then for which he is so delivered may signifie the
incursions of Satan upon such persons then visible and so I understood it afore But I must not therefore omit that sense of these words which the ancient Church frequeneth understanding this destruction to be the mortification of the flesh by works of Penance For this is that sense which Tertullian then a Moâ—tanist labours to confute but Origen in Levit. Hom. XXIV Pacianus Paraenesi ad Paenitenâ—iam S. Basil ad Aâ—philochium C. VII S. Ambrose de Paenitentià I. 12. S. Austine de fide operibus cap. XXVI suppose and use Neither is it any way inconsequent that the excommunicate believing themselves to come thereby under the power of Satan should betake themselves to those demonstrations of humiliation and mortification whereby the Church might be moved to admit them to the means of their reconcilement And in this there is more then preaching the Gospel or taking away offence There is authority obliging to use the cure and granting reconciliation upon the same Again when S. Paul saith to them again 2 Cor. XII 20. 21. I am afraid least when I come I find you not such as I would and be found of you such as you would not least there be strifes envies animosities conâ—enâ—ions back-bitings whisporings inflasions commotions Least when I come to you again God humble me in regard of you and I mourn for many that have sinned afore and have not repented of the uncleanesse and whoredome and wantonnesse which they have done How should S. Paul be humbled in regard of or mourn for many of them but in regard of the necessity which he feareth to find of putting them out of the Church or to penance in case they adhere to the Church And if by appearance and demonstration of their repentance S. Paul was to be moved not to do this is it not evident that this is the means which he imployes to procure repentance and assure pardon by discharging them of it I do here repetâ— that which I said afore to show that it is the Apostles intent Heb. VI. 4. 5 6. X. 26 27. XII 15. 16 17. to deterre them from falling away from Christianity to Judaism for fear of persecution from the Jews by puting them out of hope of being readmitted to the communion of the Church Not as pronouncing sentence of damnâ—tion against them but as demonstrating it so difficult to be presumed upon in behalfe of him that had once violated the profession of Christianity that the Church was not to become the warrant for it If this be the case of those whose interest in the promises of the Gospel the Church warrants not then the warrant of the Church either in pronouncing sentence of absolution formally or in admitting really unto the communion of the Eucharist proceeds oâ— ought to proceed upon supposition of that disposition which qualifies for pardon wrought in the penitent by the censure of the Church And that this is the case I have further inferred from the words of the Apostle 1 Joh. V. 16. 17. If a man see his Brother sinne a sin â—â—t to death he shall pray and life shall be given to them that sinne not to death There is a sinne to death I say not that ye pray for it All unrighteousnesse is sinne But there is a sinne not to death For seeing it is manifest that the Church is to pray for all sinners be they never so great enemies to the Church it cannot be understood that absolutely the Church is not to pray for the sinne to death but that as he forbiddeth not so he obligeth not the Church to pray for the sinne unto death those prayers which tend to reconcile the sinner to the Church upon supposition and for a warrant of the reconcilement thereof with God If this seem not to agree with the words because S. John seems to speak to particular persons and not to the body of the Church when he sayes If any man see lâ—t him ask Let him consider the words of anoâ—her Apostle James V. 14. 15 16 For when he promiseth forgivenesse of sinnes to him that shall call for the Priests of the Church and they pray over him Adding immediately Confessâ— your sinnes to one another and pray for one another that ye may be healed It is necessary that we make good a reason why this admonition follows upon that which went before Why the Apostle having taken order for the cure of their sinnes who are here ordered to send for the Priests of the Churâ—h proceeds to say Confesse your sinnes to one another Namely because the way of curing sinne is the â—ame when a man confesses his sinne to a Brother that is a private Christian and when hâ— submits it to the authority of the Church For as here the Apoâ—tle maketh the means of obtaining pardon to consist in the prayers of the Priests in whom the authority of the Church resteth â—o there in the prayers of one Christian for another that confesses his sinne to him And hâ—reupon it is necessarily to be presumed both that the Apostle means that the Priests of the Church impose upon him that course of câ—re which his sinne requireth in case he survive And also that a private Christian by his advice reduce his Brother to use the same means Otherwise to what purpose should the one or the other declare his sinne seeing he might be prayed for at large without declaring the same It is therefore no marvail that the words of S. John manifestly concerning particular Christians should extend to the Keyes of the Church and the publick office thereof For though in the beginning when he saith If a man see his Brother sinne a sin not to death he addresseth onely to particular Christians yet the â—nd there is a sinne unto death I say not that ye pray for it manifestly addresseth to the Body of the Church implying that it is to be acquainted therewith by him that sees this if the case require it Whereupon S. Paul thus exhorteth Gal. VI. 1. Brethren if a man be overtaken in any transgression ye that are spiritual restore such a one with the spirit of meeknesse considering your selves least ye also be tempted Here the title of spiritual may extend to particular Christians But there is a presumption concerning publick persons in the Church that they are such because it is the opinion that they are such which qualifies them to be made publick persons in the Church Now when he speaks to the brethren in generall to do this he showes that it may concern the Body of the Church as well as particular Christans But when he speaks of the spirit of meeknesse it is manifest that the intent of his speech concerns those Penances which were imposed upon sinners for trial of their convesions in which he requires that meeknesse which the consideration of a mans own meeknesse recommends And therefore the same thing is taught by S. Iames by and by after the words afore quoted James V. 19. 20.
Brethren if any man of you go astray from the truth and some body bring him back let him know that he who brings back a sinner from the errâ—r of his way shall save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sinnes For it is plain by S. Paul that this extendeth to the recovery of a sinner by the Keyes of the Church as they were managed during the Apostles time Certainly if we understand S. Pauls words 1 Tim. V. 22. 24. of imposition of hands in Penance as I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 23. that they may and ought to be understood it is necessarily to be inferred seeing they who admit those sinners to be reconciled unto God by the Prayers which the Church makes for them with imposition of hands signifying thereby that it alloweth them to be sâ—ncerely penitent are partakers of their sinnes which shall follow upon the readmitting of them to the Church being not worthy qualified for it Therefore the Church is to see that a man be qualified for reconciliation with the Church upon supposition of his reconciliation with God before he be reconciled to the Church And in first procuring him and then judging him to be so qualified consists the right use of those Keyes which God hath given the Church towards them that transgresse the profession of Christianity after they have made it The reason of all this is derived from those things which have been setled by the premises The condition which the Gospel proposeth for the remission of sinnes to them who stâ—nd convict by it that they are under sinne is that they return from sinne â—nd believing that our Lord Châ—iâ—t was senâ— by God to cure it undertake to professe that which he taught and to live according to the same Those which professe so to do the Church accepteth of wiâ—hout exception because this being the first account she hath of them she cannot expect more at their hands then that they submit the rest of their lives to that Christianity which she obligeth them to If by trâ—nâ—gressing this obligation which they have undertaken they forfeit the right which they obtainâ—d thereby is it in the power of the Church to restore them at pleasurâ— In vain then is all that hath been said to show that the Gospel and Christianity in order of nature and reason is more ancient then the constitution of the Church and the corporation of it And that all the power of the Chuâ—ch presupposeth the condition upon which those blessings which it tendreth are due And certainly our Lord when he saith to his Diâ—ciples Joh. XX. 23. Whosesoever sinne ye remit they are remitted intended not to contradict the sense of the Sâ—râ—bes when they say Who can forgive sinnes but God alone Mark II. 7. Luk. V. 21. Much lesse to reverse the word of his Prophets ascribing this power of him alone Esay XLIII 25. Mich. VII 18. Psal XXXII 5 What is then the effect of this promise to them that have forfeited the right of their Baptism supposing that when men first become Christians the Disciples of Christ and his Church remit sinnes by making them Christians according to that which hath been declared Surely the same observing the difference of the case For he who being convict of his disease and of the cure of it by the preaching of Christianity is effectually moved by the helpe of Gods Spirit to imbrace that cure which none but the Church which tenders it can furnish attains it not but by using it That is by being baptized But he who being baptized hath failed of his trust and forfeited his interest in Christ cannot so easily be restored I have showed you what works of mortification of devotion and mercy the recovering of Gods grace and favour requirâ—s Let no man therefore thinke that the power of remitting sinnes in the Church can abate any thing of that which the Gospel upon which the Church is grounded requiteth to the remission of finne done after Baptism The authority of the Church is provided by God to oblige those who are overtaken in sinne to undergo that which may satisfie the Church of the sincere intent of their returne And the Church being so satisfied warranteth their restitution to the right which they had forfeited upon as good ground as it warranteth their first estate in it But this presupposeth the wrath of God appeased his favour regained and the inordinâ—te love of the creature which caused the forfeit blotted out and changed through that course of mortification which hath been performed into the true love of goodnesse for Gods sake The Church therefore hath received of God no power to forgive sinnes immediately as if it were in the Church to pardon sâ—nne without that diâ—poâ—ition which by the Gospel qualifieth a man for it Or as if the act of the Church pardoning did produce it But in as much as the knowledge thereof directeth and the authority thereof constraineth to use the means which the Gospell prescribeth in so much is the remission of sinnes thereby obtained truly ascribed to the Church Lazarus was first dead before he was bound up in his Grave clothes And when he was restored to life he remained bound till he was loosed by the Apostles The Church bindeth no man but him that is first dead in sinne If the voice of Christ call him out of that death he is not revived till the love of sin be mortified and the love of God made alive in him by a due course of Penance performed If the motion of Gods spirit upon the preaching of the Gospel convincing a man that there is no means but Christianity to escape out of sinne and prevailing with him to imbrace it be effectuall to obtain the promises of the Gospel Much more shall the actuall operation of the same moving him that is dead in sinne to put sinne to death in himself that he may live a Christian for the future be effectuall to regain the grace of God for him who hath not yet the life of grace in him but is in the way of recovering it by the helpe of Gods grace But he who is thus recovered to life by the ministery of the Church is not yet loosed of the bands of his sinne till he be loosed by the Church because he was first bound by it as our Lord having raised Lazarus to live commands him to be loosed by his Apostles For if he who accepteth of the Gospel and the terms of it remain bound to be baptized by the Church for the remission of his sinne Is it strange that he who hath forfeited his pardon obtained by the Church even in the judgement and knowledge of the Church should not obtain the restoring of it but by the act of the Church And therefore the Church remitteth sinne after Baptism not onely as a Physician prescribing the cure but as a judge admitting it to be effected And the satisfaction of the Church presupposeth
that God is satisfied that is to say his wrath appeased and his favour regained by the means which the Church prescribeth But requireth also that he submit not onely to use the cure which the Church prescribeth but to the judgement thereof in admitting the effect of it And upon these terms and upon no other the virtue of Baptism mortified by sinne reviveth again according to the doctrine of the School For if nothing else but the sincere resolution of living and dying as a Christian can intitle any man to the promises of the Gospel what is it that must intitle him to them that hath once forfeited his title Surely nothing but the renewing of that trust which is forfeited by failing of it And surely that trust is not so easily re-established as it is first contracted I have shewed you in the second Book what reason we have to believe that the severity of the ancient Church in readmitting those that failed of their profession at their Baptism necessarily argues the difficulty of being re-estated in the favour of God There goes more indeed to the satisfying of the Church that he who had failed of his Christianity hath sincerely renewed his resolution for it then to the renewing of it But that this resolution will as well be effectuall and durable as it is sincere it is as difficult to assure a mans selfe as to satisfie the Church The power of the Church then in binding and loosing that is in remitting or retaining sinne consists not onely in declaring a sinner either bound or loose Whether in generall by preaching the Gospel or in particular by refusing or restoring him to the communion of the Church For whom the Church bindeth for sinne known to the Church his pardon is not to be had without the act of the Church But in constraining him that will be a Christian to mortifie the love of sinne in himselfe as his sin declares it to be alive in him is the power of the Church in remitting sinne exercised And in pronouncing sentence of absolution in what form soever the power of assuring the same Let us now look over these same Scriptures again for by them having no other we must judge whether this power extends to all sins so that no sinne after Baptism can be pardoned without the ministery of the Church and the use of it Whether it extend onely to notorious sinners as an abatement of the sentence of excommunication which being liable to upon demonstration of repentance they are admitted to be reconciled by it or lastly whether there be some other reason to determine the extent of it Surely he that argues because God hath given his Disciples this Power and the Church after them therefore he hath commanded all sinners to use it denying all hope of pardon to them that do not use it by declaring their sinnes to them whom the Church trusts for it makes a lame consequence For will any reason allow him to say that otherwise this power signifies nothing when it is granted to extend to the curing of all notorious sinnes That which we learn of it from S. Paul to the Corinthians without all controversie concerns no sinnes but but such The sinne of him that had maried his Fathers wife was so well known that it had raised a party in the Church of such as pretended it to be consistent with Christianity And when S. Paul is afraid that coming to them he shall be fain to put many of them to Penance for the sinnes which having committed they would have made no demonstration of conversion from them before his coming it is evident enough that he speaks of no secret sinnes because the punishment which he pretends to inflict is for standing out against his leters in their sinnes As for that sinne which the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exclude from reconcilement with God by the Church Apostasy from Christianity it is necessarily and essentially a manifest sinne because it consists in the visible renouncing of that profession which had been visibly made But coming to S. James we find that he commands the Priests of the Church to be sent for promising forgivenesse of sinnes upon their Prayers And therefore when he proceedeth to say Confesse your sinnes to one another and pray for one another we gather that he promiseth the pardon of those sinnes which the sick person shall have confessed to the Priests of the Church For if it be requisite for obtaining the prayers of a Brother for the pardon of our sinnes that we confesse them to him he that prescribes it must needs understand those sinnes which he promises forgivenesse upon their prayers to be declared to them afore It is therefore manifest that the Apostle here delivereth a precept of confessing sinne both to one another and to the Priests of the Church supposing the cure of sinne be known to all Christians by the Tradition of our common Christianity and the visible custome and practice of all Churches by works of humiliation and mortification of devotion and mercy whereby satisfaction is made not onely to the Church which receiveth offense by visible sinne but also to God who is offended by all sinne in that sense and to that effect which hath been justified in the second Book Namely to the appeasing of his wrath to the regaining of his grace and favour to the restoring of the Covenant of Grace contracted at our Baptism which sinne had made void And therefore in virtue of that satisfaction for all sinne which was once made by our Lord Christ upon the Cross without which that which we are able to do towards this effect would all have been to no purpose Whereupon that the Church is not satisfied in such a case but supposing that God is satisfied first and that the prayers which the Church maketh for the pardon of sinne are granted and made or ought to be granted and made upon presumption that the sinner is in a way of obtaining pardon of God by those Prayers upon his submission to the use of those means which either the Priests of the Church by the authority thereof shall injoyn or a Brother by his skill and discretion shall advise This being unavoidably the meaning of the Apostles first it is manifest that all Christians being directed by the Apostle to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church for the cure of sinne in the danger of death they may be more obliged to the same course in time of health because it may then be used whereas in danger of death though it must be prescribed yet it cannot be used but by him that surviveth Secondly it is further implyed that the sinne which a man confesseth to his Brother if he be not able to advise a meete cure for it is not onely by the party but by him also to be brought to the Church And so in both cases you have an injunction of the Apostle for the submitting of secret sinne to the Keyes
of the Church But you have also a possibility for the cure of sinne without the authority of the Church in as much as it had been too impertinent for the Apostle to have given a Precept of confessing sinne to one another if no sinne could be pardoned without having recourse to the Church The same is the effect of S. Johns words If a man see his Brother sinne a sinne not unto death For it is manifest that that sinne which one man sees is not notorious to the Church And yet the distinction which S. John maketh between the sinne which he commandeth a private Christian to pray for and the sinnes which he commandeth not the Church to pray for with the difficulties which the primitive Church had about it show that those sinnes which private advice cannot cure he would have brought to the Church And S. Johns meaning is that a man should pray for such sinnes of his Brother as he is sure are not to death Supposing first his Brother disposed by himself or by his advise to take the course that may qualifie him for forgivenesse But if it prove doubtful whether to death or not the Apostle by saying that there are some sinnes which he referreth to the Church whither to pray for pardon of them to wit in order to restoring them to the communion of the Church or not supposeth that they are reported to the Church by him that saw them when the Church saw them not But first supposing that they might possibly have been cured without bringing them to the Church And if these things be true then is the bringing of a sinner back from the error of his way according to that Precept of S. James which followeth an obligation that is to be discharged not onely by the office of a private Christian in convicting a private Christian of his sinne and of the means that he is to use for his recovery but also by bringing him to the Church if the case require it Which obligation will necesâ—atily lie upon the sinner himself in the first place But so that his own skill and fidelity to his own salvation may possibly furnish him his cure at home The tenor of our Saviours words throughly inforceth the same according to that which I observed in the first Book p. 140. that all Christians may be said to bind sinne by showing a Christian his sinne in case he refuse that cure which he that convicts him of his sinne convicts him that is to use And to loose sin in case he imbrace it But this in the inner Court of the Conscience between God and the soul For though the words of our Lord If thy Brother offend thee tell him of it between him and thee extend to private injuries obliging a Christian first to seek reparation by the good will of his party upon remonstrance of the wrong Then not to seek it out of the Church but by the Church yet they necessarily comprehend all sinnes which another man knows which to him are offences And therefore when our Saviour saith If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother it is manifest that the effect of his promise which followeth Whosoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven is obtained by the act of a private Christian without recourse to the publick authority of the Church And who will believe that the skill and fidelity of some private Christian may not furnish him as good a cure as he can expect to learn from any private Christian to whom he can have recourse And yet the process of our Lords discourse showes that the intent of it concerns in chiefe the exercise of the Keyes of Gods Church even upon those sinnes which are not notorious Which who so considers cannot refuse to grant that S. Pauls injunction for the restoring of him that is surprised in sinne concerns both the office of private Christiaâ—s and also of a whole Church and the Body of it And truly considering what hath been said concerning Scripture and Tradition it cannot seem strange that the Apostles leaving such authority with the Churches of their founding with generall instructions to those whom they trusted them with writing to the Bodies of those Churches things respectively concerning all Christians should give directions concerning all in generall terms which the visible practice of the said Churches might determine to the respective office of each quality and estate in those Churches No more then that our Lord finding the power of the Keyes not yet visible before Christianity should propose his instructions in that generality which onely his Apostles orders and the practice of their Churches upon their instructions determineth For the power of the Keyes in the Church inables it further untill the worlds end to limit further whatsoever shall appear to require further determination to the end of binding and loosing of sinne which it importeth according as the present state of the Church in every age shall require Let us now consider that though I have made evidence by consequence from the writings of the Apostles that remission of sinnes committed after Baptism may be obtained without the Keyes of the Church yet it is hard to find any expresse promise to that effect in their writings unlesse it be that of S. Johns first Epistle In which notwithstanding a limitation of that confession which the Apostle requires to the Church and to those that are trusted by the Church may reasonably be understood supposing the way of curing sinne by the ministery of the Church to have been customary and therefore known at that time And on the contrary though I do believe these consequences to be unreproveable yet it is to be considered that S. Pauls indulgence seems to be granted upon a particular occasion incident to distemper the ordinary course of the Church Namely the prevailing of some sinne to a faction of some great or the greatest part of the Church Which as it necessarily intercepted the use of the power of the Keyes though provided and ordained by God for the curing of the said sinnes so can it by no means argue that God hath not appointed it for the ordinary means of curing them As for the consequence which was made from the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and of the Gospels before the establishment of the Covenant of Baptism to show that they take effect also in sinnes after Baptism It may easily be considered that they take place no further then that disposition which is requisite to the forgivenesse of those sinnes whereby the grace of Baptism is violated may be supposed to be produced without helpe of the Church Which as I conceive I have proved to be possible so I conceive no man living can prove to be so easie that all those who stand in need of the remedy can presume upon so good ground as the safety of the soul requires to obtain it or to have obtained it of themselves without that helpe which
the ministery appointed by God in his Church furnishes Which if it be true it will inevitably follow that the most part of Christians are for the most part bound in conscience to have recourse to the power of the Church and the Keyes thereof for the cure of those sinnes which are not of themselves notorious And that other Christians may be tied in conscience to bring them to the Church for it by making known those sinnes which otherwise are not notorious To wit when they cannot reasonably presume that of themselves they will apply themselves to the means which the cure requires And if this be true it will also follow that it is in the power of the Church to make Rules of force to bind the consciences of those who are of the Church limiting the terms upon which they shall stand bound to have recourse to the Church for that purpose Indeed had the Apostles delivered any such faith That a man is justified by believing that he is appointed by God to salvation immediately upon consideration of Christ without any disposition qualifying him for it onely limiting his right in this appointment to the time that this appointment is revealed to him which revelation is that faith which alone justifieth I would then confesse that this interpretation of Scripture would no way be receivable because indeed no such Scriptures could have proceeded from those that delivered such a faith It would then be sufficient that he to whom this predestination is revealed by justifying faith should say Lord have mercy upon me at breathing out his last Or rather it would be needlesse nay damnable for him to desire that mercy which if he were not sure of before he said it he must be damned for want of that faith which onely saveth But if all Christians be justified by sincerely undertaking the profession of Christianity and that this sincerity is inconsistent with doing contrary to that which this profession containeth then let all men of discretion and conscience judge not whether the Church hath reason to believe that every such a one will voluntarily charge himself with that humiliation which may seem to mortifie the passions that made him sin afore and make his profession sincere for the future but whether himselfe hath reason to believe that either he knows how to value it or will effectually perform it not being instructed and obliged to it by the Church Seeing then on the side that God hath provided the Ministery of the Church for the purpose the effect of it in reconciling notorious sinnes being undeniable On the other no reason can presume that all Christians either know or will supply to themselves the work and effect of that Ministery being left to themselves It followeth that though voluntary Penance is not necessary for obtaining remission of every sinne yet it is necessary for the body of the Church because there is no ground of presumption that the sinnes thereof are or can be cleansed without it CHAP. X. The Sects of the Montanists Novations Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doth the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the Primitive Church That no sinne can be cured without the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands ANd this is that whch the Tradition of the Church that is the originall and universall practice of Penance evidencing that it could have no other beginning then the authority of the Apostles which onely could oblige the whole Church throughly justifieth I told you at the beginning how near Montanus his Heresie was to the death of S. John when the age of the Apostles ended And it will not be amiss to tell you here that I shall show you in another place that in all probability it is still elder by above twenty years then Eusebius his account which there I allowed doth make it The pretense thereof among other austerities which they pretended to impose for Rules upon the whole Church upon the authority of Prophesies Inspirations and Revelations which they had or pretended to have was to exclude some great crimes from reconcilement with God by the means of the Church that is to say in the language of those times from being admitted to Penance I demand now of any man that will imploy a little of his common sense upon the businesse whether there had been any subject for Montanus to pretend the introducing of greater austerity then was practised in the Church in this point if there had been no practice of Penance then in the Church capable of greater strictnesse then was commonly practised And if his common sense gives no sentence let him advise either with that which remains of Tertullian for Montanus or against him in the records of the Church and tell me whether they do condemn the reconciling of sinne by Penance prescribed in the Church or that strictnâ—sse which Montanus pretended to introduce over and above the common practice evidencing therfore the force of that Penance which as generally practiâ—ed by condemning him for indeavouring to inhanse it Thus much for certain had not Montanus pretended to impose the austerity which he affected for a Rule upon the rest of the Church the occasion for which he was excluded out of the Church had not been He had reduced the Churches of Phrygia to his sense rather by the credit of those Revelations then by any authority which he stood professed of in them so farre as I learn And from thence it came to passe that his Doctrine continued so long in force there that the sect is call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which the Phrygians follow and the Sectaries Cataphryges in Latine But when according to the strict correspondence that then was exercised between all Churches it came to be communicated to the Churches of Asia we find by Eusebius how his pretense of Revelations was rejected as counterfeit or as unsufficient and by consequence the Law which upon the authority of them he pretended to impose upon the Church That being rejected by the neighbour Churches he travailed to Rome or sent to Rome to approve them there that being so received he might upon new grounds tender them to his neighbours we learn by Tertullian That being rejected there also Tertullian out of the passion he had for them being drawn away from the Church maintained their profession in a Church erected by Schism upon that account at Carthage till the times of S. Augustine by whom they were reduced to the communion of the Catholick Church we learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus and the same S. Augustine But otherwise the Phrygians were counted Sectaries by the rest of the Church that is necessarily Schismaticks and perhaps Hereticks if indeed by being separated from the body of the Church they became
guilty of those excesses which they are charged with by Epiphanius S. Jerome and others Of these particulars you may see in S. Augustine de Haeresibus and Sirmondus his Praedestinatus both of them Haeresi XXVI and LXXXVI But all the while the subject of this separation is the discipline of Penance received by the whole Church as from the Apostles the limitation of the practice thereof being the ground upon which the difference is stated And for the ground of this ground Whether it could then be pretended that the Keyes of the Church could do no more then cure the scandall of notorious sinne on the one side Or whether it could then be pretended on the other side that the Keyes of the Church import any Power to pardon sinne immediately not supposing that disposition which qualifieth for pardon visible to the Church and procured by those actions which the authority of the Church injoyneth All this I am content to referre to that common sense which is capable to understand these particulars I shall not need to say much of the Novatians at Rome and elsewhere the Donatists in Africk of the Meletians in Aegypt having said this of the Montanists all of them if we regard the subject of the separations which they made in severall parts of the Church being nothing else but branches of the same sect and forsaking the unity of the Church for their part of that cause which ingaged Montanus The Novatians because they would not indure that those who fell away from the Faith in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon demonstration of repentance The Meletians for the same cause in Aegypt under the persecution of Diocletiane The Donatists upon some appertenâ—nce of the same cause Onely they serve to evidence the discipline of Penance to have been as universall as the Church of Christ when no part of it is found free from debates about the terms liâ—iting the exercise of it They serve also to evidence the ground and the pretenâ—e of the Power of the Keyes in the discipline of Penance by the same reason which I alledged afore After these times when the customes of the Church which from the beginning was governed by un-written Law delivered by word of mouth of the Apostles but limited more and more by the Governours of several Churches began to be both reduced into writing and also more expresly determined by the Canons of severall Councils greater and lesse it were too vain to prove that by dicourse which of it selfe is as evident as it is evident that there are such Rules extant which in their time had the force of Law to those parts of the Church for which they were respectively made Onely I do observe the agreement that is found between the originall practice of the Church in this point and that order which I have showed you out of the Apostles writings evidencing that interpretation which I have given of them by that rule which common sense inforces that the meaning and intent of every Law is to be measured by the primitive practice of it For we see so much doubt made whether those three great crimes of Idolatry Murther and Adultery were to be reconciled by Penance that is by the visible and outward demonstration of inward repentance to the Church not onely by Montanus but partly by Novatianns that that great Church of Antiochia remained doubtfull a great while whether Cornelius or Novatians should be acknowledged the true Bishop of Rome We see the Eliberitane Canons which were unquestionably made divers years before the Council at Nicaea and therefore may be counted as ancient as any that the Church hath exclude some branches of those sinnes from reconciliation with the Church We see this vigor abated by the succeeding discipline of the Church It is indeed said in the Church of Rome at this time that the ground of the Heresie as without ground they call it of the Montanists and Novatians was this that acknowledging the Church to have power to forgive lesse sinnes they the Novatians denied it the Power to forgive Apostasy or Idolatry To which the Montanists added Murther and Adultery But I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 17-27 that within the Church also as well as among the Montanists and Novatians some of these sinnes were not admitted to communion no not at the point of death And that there never was any opinion in the ancient Church that the Church hath any Power to forgive sinne immediately but onely by the medicine of Penance which it injoyneth I referre my selfe to that which here followeth Now it is plain that neither those parts of the Church nor the Novatians did hold those sinnes desperate but exhorted them to Penance as their cure in Gods sight agreeing in not readmitting them whither for the maintenance of Discipline or for fear the Church warranting their pardon who might prove not qualified for it should become guilty of their sinnes according to S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man nor partake in other mens sinnes For S. John and the Apostle to the Hebrews had authorized the Church to make difficulty of it though S. Paul had readmitted a branch of one of them the incestuous person at Corinth whether for the unity of that Church then in danger to be divided upon that occasion or as reasonably satisfied of the truth of his repentance But when the zeal of Christianity decreased as the number of Christians increased within and persecution without withdrew so many that there was no means left to preserve the Body without abating this severity the number of Apostates in some persecutions being considerable to the number of Christians we need seek no other reason why the Montanists and Novatians should be Schismaticks not properly Hereticks then their separating from the Church rather then condescend to that which the Body of the Church found requisite to be granted Let us see what crimes they are which the Eliberitane Canons that is the Canons of the Council of Elvira in Spain exclude from the communion even in case of death As if a man at age after Baptism commit adultery in the Temple of an Idol cap. I. If an Idol Priest having been baptized shall sacrifice again II. If such a one after Penance shall have committed adultery III. If a Christian kill a man by Witchcraft wherein there is Idolatry VI. If a Christian commit adultery after Penance VII If a Woman leaving her Husband without cause mary another VIII If a Father or Mother sell a child into the Stews or a child it selfe XII If a professed Virgine shall live in uncleannesse XIII If a man marry his daughter to an Idol Priest XVII If a Clergy-man commit adultery XVIII If he who is admitted to communion upon adultery in danger of death shall commit adultery again XLVII If a Woman kill the childe which she hath conceived of adultery
we find no other motive for that severity but never see any of the Church except that they concern not that purpose but well and good that they serve not to prove it In like maner you have seen S. Paul witnesse the order then in the Church to mourn for those that were excluded the communion of the Church You have seen S. John and S. James after our Saviour signifie that the means of procuring remission of sin by the Church is to be expected from the prayers of the Church You may see on the other side the primitive Church make great demonstration of sorrow at the discovery of those sinnes for which some body is shut out of the Church or reduced to Penance As you may see by the authorities alledged in Grotius upon 1 Cor. V. 2. and by Epiphanius his Exposition of 2. Cor. XII 21. Haer. LIX especially by that eminent example of Natalis in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 28. And in the solemn service of the Church before the celebration of the Eucharist from the beginning you have seen a Prayer appointed to be made for those that were under Penance as well as for those that were not baptized and those that were vexed with evill Spirits that so they might be dimissed before the Eucharist to which they were not to be admitted I say therefore they who see this if they will see what they do see have evidence what the Apostles instituted in the Church as also upon what ground and to what purpose by what the Church immediately after them did practice A third thing there is which visibly derives not onely these Ordinances but the true intent and meaning of them from the institution of the Apostles and that is the indulgence which S. Paul useth in abating the Penance of that incestuous person whom I spoke of at Corinth Indulgence in Ammianus signifies the discharging of taxes imposed upon the Provinces of the Romane Empire by an act of Grace of the Emperours upon remonstrance of reasons wherefore this or that Province might deserve to be eased What can be more like this then the abatement of that hardship whereby those that were prescribed Penance were to demonstrate their inward repentance to the Church S. Paul we see upon representation of the submission of the Church and the guilty person both to the censure which he had ordered and of the real demonstration of sorrow made on his part and the intercession of the Church for his reconcilement thus condescends To whom you grant any thing I also grant it For if I have granted any thing it is for your sakes that I have granted it to him whom I have granted it in the person of Christ that Satan may have no advantage over us For we are not ignorant of his devices 2 Cor. II. 10. 11. I showed you before two reasons which S. Paul may be thought to point at by these words For he acknowledgeth by the premises â—â—ery considerable demonstration of conversion in the penitent sufficient to argue that S. Paul thought him really qualified for remission of sinne But in regard he declares here that it is for the Churches sake that he condesceâ—â—eth to prevent the advantage that Satan might have against them he intimaâ—â—â— a jealousie of some mutiny in the Church against his authority in case he condescended not For though he grant absolution in this regard yet he may well say he granteth it in the person of Christ though we suppose the party not really qualified for it supposing that he doth it to preserve the Unity of the Church chiefly concerning the common good of Christs flock For what S. Paul does by virtue of the office committed to him by Christ that he may well say he doth in the person of Christ as tending to the upright discharge of his office By the former of these reasons we evidently see the intent and effect of the Keyes of the Church in purging of sinne by the discipline of Penance For if indulgence be granted in consideration of evidence that appears to ground a presumption that the party is qualified for remission of sins in the judgement of the Church then is all the discipline of Penance to no other purpose but to oblige sinners to take that course whereby they may appear to the Church qualified for remission of sinne But that which S. Paul here doth is the very same that the primitive Church alwaies did from the beginning For whoso showed such zeal in taking revenge upon himself for his transgressions that the Church might be satisfied that God remained satisfied of his repentance to him the severity of this discipline was so fully released that those strict Canons that injoyned so many years Penance for divers great sinnes may seem to have been but threatnings inviting to show that zeal in conversion from sinne that the Church might have cause to be satisfied of their inward repentance And as often as there was fear of schism in any Church the practice of the primitive Church witnesseth how ready they were to receive those that would return abating the hardship of Penance The reason being this that what the Church condescended to for the avoiding of a greater mischief to the body thereof which is Schism in that she could not be understood to warrant forgivenesse of sins to those whom she received further then that disposition of mind which the parties themselves know that they returned with might warrant it For in as much as it was evident that the Church waved the rule by which they used to proceed for unities sake it remained also evident that the charge of making good that disposition which qualifieth before God for the communion of the Church devolves upon the conscience of them that impose the necessity of waving such wholesome rules upon the Church whatsoever the form were in which they were reconciled Let us now see whether the primitive practice of the Church will justifie the voluntary confession of secret sinnes to the Church as the means to obtain the pardon of them at Gods hands Tertullian in his Book de Poenitentiâ is very earnest in perswading not those that were fallen into notorious sinnes for what need he perswade them to undergo Penance who if they would continue Christians that is if they would injoy the communion of the Church could not avoid it but as it appears by his words those that could not be constrained to have recourse to that Penance which the Church required for the purging of their sinnes or for assurance that they were purged For when he pronounceth that sins of the will which no man but the party is guilty to are to be purged by this Penance as he doth in the third and fourth Chapters of that Book shall we imagine that he undertakes of his own head to bring in a thing that was not wont to be done in the Church Then might he have been rejected as well as his Master Montanus when he went
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
Churches of all one Soveraignty constitute the Nationall Church containing all the Provinces thereof so would they have also Provincial Synodical and Classical Churches consisting of the Congregations Classes and Synods which each respective Classis Synod or Province containeth The other mean opinion is the frame of the Catholick Church I as have showed and shall show it to have been in force from the time of the Apostles Having first showed that the visible unity of the Church is a thing commanded by God in the first place for the communion of all Christians in the true faith and in the service of God according to the same For it is visible that the means by which this hath been attained is the dividing of Christendom into Churches which we now call Dioceses providing each of them a sufficient number of Priests and Deacons under one Head the Bishop as well to regulate the faith and maners of the people as to Minister unto them the offices of Gods service Therefore whatsoever means I imployed at the beginning to show that those persons who succeeded the Apostles in time obtained not their places by force or fraud but by their will and appointment will here be effectual to prove that the qualities which they held in their severall Churches were not obtained by force or fraud but by the same appointment Wherefore having showed that from the beginning the unity of the Church hath been mainâ—ained by the mutuall intelligence and correspondence of the chief Churches upon whom the less depended And that this intelligence and correspondence was alwaies addressed and managed by the heads of the said Churches nor could it indeed have been maintained had there not been such Heads alwaies ready to address and manage the same I have in effect showed that this was the course whereby the Apostles executed their design of maintaining unity in the Church Is it not plain by the instances produced in the first Book that the whole Church remained satisfied of the saith of each Christian upon the testimony of his Bishops because they rested satisfied of his That hereupon whosoever was recommended by his Bishop was admitted to communion as well abroad as at home What other interess had the Church of Rome in the faith of Paulus Samosatenus or Dionysius Alexandrinus the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia in the proceedinge of Novatianus all Churches in the fortune of Athanasius What other reaâ—on can any man give for that uniform difformity of Ecclesiasticall Traditions and customes which â—ppeareth from point to point in all maters the whole Church agreeing in things of highest concernment but all Churches differing in maters of lesse consequence Is it not manifest whensoever inâ—stead of this daily correspondence Synods were assembled upon more pressing occasions that onely Bâ—shops appeared in behalf of their respective Churches For if others appeaâ—ed in the name of Bishops upon occasion of old age or other hinderances I need not say that it was the Bishops right in which another appeared Into these qualities and preheminences over the rest whether of the Clergy or People that Bishops should be able to inâ—â—nuate themselves all over Christendom had it not been so appointed by the Apostles it is no lesse contradictory to common sense then that Christianity should ever have been received had not such men as our Lord Christ and his Apostles preached and done such things as the Scriptures relate to make it receivable Or then that all Christians should of their own inclinations agree to those Laws which have made the Church one Society from the beginning had they not found themselves tied to follow the appointment of the Apostles that founded it Wherefore I will not take upon me to show you the names of Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs in the Scriptures Much lesse any command there recorded that all Churches be governed by Bishops all higher Churches by higher Bishops But I pretend to have showed by the particulars produced in the Right of the Church Chap. III. in the Primitive Government of Churches throughout and in the Apostolical form of Divine Service Chap. IV. and never contradicted to my knowledge that there are express marks left us in the Scriptures of severall Churches planted in several Cities so that there is never mention of more Churches then one in one City but perpetually of more then one in one Province of Heads of those Churches whether Apostles themselves or their fellows and successors applyed to the charge of several Churches Of chief Churches and inferiour Churches according to the capacity of the Cities in which they were first planted I challenge further here as proved by that which hath been said in the first Book That this form of Government hath been in sorce ever since the time of the Apostles whose immediate successors are to be named in the greatest Seas upon which it is evident that inferiour Churches depended from the same time As manifest by that which hath been said in the places afore-named That the advice and assistance of Presbyters together with the ministery and attendance of Deacons to and upon the said Heads is as anciently evident in the Records of the Church as any Record of any Church is ancient And upon these premises I conclude That the same course and way of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which afterwards prevailed throughout the whole Church was first begun by the Apostles as without whose authority it could not have taken effect all over the Church And of those that take upon them to depart from the Church that they may not be so governed I take my self inabled to demand where there is any precept recorded in Scripture that the Government of the whole Church be setled either in Independant Congregations or in Congregationâ—l Classical Synodical Provincial and National Churches The very names are as barbarous to the language of the Scriptures â—s the subject is to the Writers of it And yet were all this showed me I would say that as the Magicians of Pharoah in the third Miracle so must the Architects of this design fail in the highest point of aecumenical or Catholick Which having never been compassed but by the means of single heads of the chief Churches it is absolutely too late for any other form to pretend I say not to come from any command of the Apostles but to be receivable in the Church being founded by God for one and the same body to continue till the coming of Christ to judgement For if the Apostles of our Lord determining in part that Order which should preserve the unity of the Church which what it was the original practice of the whole Church evidenceth leave the rest to be determined by the Church for its own necessity and use That which is so determined by the Châ—rch whensoever it becomes necessary to maintain unity in the Church shall no lesse oblige then that which the Apostles determined in specie themselves The reason is the unity
of the Church not onely of divine right as provided for by the Apostles but holding the rank of an end to which particular provisions of the Apostles in this mater seem but as means It is true I am farre from believing that had the Reformation retained this Apostolical Government the Church of Rome would thereby have been moved to joyn in it But when I see the Schisme which it hath occasioned to stand partly upon this difference When I see so many particulars begun by the Apostles as the Scriptures themselves evidence others determinable by the Church When I see those that correct Magnificat introduce instead of them those Lawes which have neither any witnesse from the Scriptures nor any footing in the authority of the whole Church I must needs conclude those that do these things in as much as they do them to be causes of the Schism that is Schismaticks For what authority upon earth can introduce any form reconcileable with that which the Apostles first introduced to procure the vanity of the Church being to continue one and the same Body from the beginning to the end but he must give cause of dissolving the unity of the said Body unlesse he can convince the rest of the Church that it is Gods act to whom all the Church is to be subject whereas to him they are not Wherâ—fore let not Presbyterians or Independents think that they have done their work when they can answer texts of Scripture so as not to be convinced that Bishops are of divine Right Unless they can harden themselves against the belief of one Catholick Church they must further give account why they depart from that which is not against Gods Law to introduce that which it commandeth not For that is to proclaim to the Church that they will not be of it unlesse they may be governed as they list themselves Whereas they cannot be of it by being governed otherwise then the whole Church from the beginning hath been Let them not marvail that those who go not along with them in it forewarn others of making themselves Schismaticks by communicating in their innovations But against the Independants I must further take notice that by the supposition of one Society of the whole Church the whole pretense of the Congregations is quite excluded For if God appointed all Churches to make one Church by the communion of all in the service of God supposing the same faith then did not God appoint all Congregations to be chief within themselves but to depend upon the whole both for the Rule of Faith and for the order of Gods service Again it is evident to common sense that the people of one Church can pretend no interess to give Law to another Church Whereas whomsoever we inable to preserve the unity of the whole those persons must eithâ—r have right to oblige those that are not of their own Congregations or else God shall hâ—ve provided that the Church shall be one but excluded the onely means by which it can be preserved one And therefore to all those texts of Scriptures which are alleged to prove the chief Power of the People in the Church which is the ground of the Congregations I give here this general answer which elsewhere I have applied to the said several passages First by way of exception that they can inferre no more now against the Clergy then they could thâ—n against the Apostles So that seeing the Apostles were then chief notwithstanding all that those Scriptures contain the Clergy also remain now chief in the Church Secondly and directly that they import no more then the tesâ—imony consent and concurrence of the people by way of suffrage or agreement and applause to the Acts of the Clergy the interess whereof is grounded upon the sensible knowledge which the people have of the persons concerned in Ordinations Censures or other Acts of the Church in regard whâ—reof it is no more then reason requires that they be duly satisfied of the proceedings of the Church without making them Judges of maters of Right in it So that to make the people chief in Church maters upon account of this Title is to make the people of England Soveraign because English Juries have power to return evidence in mater of fact either effectual or void Another reason I here advance upon supposition of the force and weight of the Tradition of the Church in evidencing the reason and intent of the sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in the Scriptures Philip one of the seven having preached and converted and baptized the Samaritanes the Apostles at Jerusalem send down to them Peter and John at whose prâ—yers with â—â—ying thâ—â—r 〈◊〉 on them they receive the Holy Ghost Act. VIII 14-17 And so S. Paul â—â—yes hâ—nds upon the twelve men that were baptized afore at Ephesus â—â—â—â—hey receive the Holy Ghost Act. XIX 1-8 For what reason shall we imagine why they that were inâ—bled to baptize were not â—â—abled to give the Holy Ghost baptism being the condition upon which the Holy Ghost was due by the promise of the Gospel but to show that they were baptized into the uniâ—y of the Church out of which they were not to expect the Holy Ghost Thâ—refore that their Baptism may have effect that is give the Holy Ghost the allowâ—nce of the Apostles upon whose government the unity of the Church dependeth is requite Whiâ—h allowance their prayers for the Holy Ghost and Impoâ—â—â—ion of hands implâ—eth and presupposeth It cannot be doubted that the visible Grace of â—peaking in strâ—nge languages the great works of God was then given for an evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with Gods people whereupon it is called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. The manifestatioâ— of the Spirit But evâ—n of this kind of Graces S. Paul saith again 1 Cor. XIV 32. 33. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets For God is not the author of unsetlednesse but of order as in all Churches of the Saints If therefore there come no confusion upon Prophets Prophesying one by one because God who is the Author of Order grants such inspirations and revelations to inferiours that they cease not therefore to be subject to those which he grants to Superiours How much more re asonable is it that the Gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that are baptized should neverthelesse deâ—end upon the blessing of the Apostles So that when S. Peter sayes to them that were convâ—rted at Pentecost Act. II. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sinnes and yâ— shall receive the gift of the Holy â—host It seems to me no more then reason requires that he â—upposes the same blessing As also S. Paul in those of whom he saith That having believed in Christ they were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise And again Grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby ye are sealed to the day
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
Congregations I do indeed acknowledge that there is difficulty in expounding those texts of the Apostles which speak to this purpose so as to agree them with the Originall and universal practice of the Church And therefore it is no marvail if learned men that have handled this point among us where without affectation I may say that it hath been most curiously and ingenuously disputed have gone several wayes upon severall grounds in assigning the reason why the degree of Deacons is mentioned next to the degree of Bishops in so many texts of the Apostles having the order of Priests between both as the original and perpetual custome of the Church required For it is well enough known that there is an opinion published and maintained by many learned observations in the primitive antiquity of the Church that during the time when those texts of the Apostles were written there were but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons established in the Church though Bishops also are called Presbyters the name not being yet appropriated to the midle order while it was not introduced as afterwards it came to be And this opinion allegeth Epiphanius very fitly confuting Aerius the Heretick or Schismatick objecting the same that at the beginning the multitude of believers in less places being so small that one Governour together with some Ministers to attend upon him in executing his Orders might well serve them it is no marvail if there be no mention of any more Orders in so many texts of the Apostles And it may be said that as there were Churches founded and governed by a certain order from the beginning that we read of them in the Apostles so no Bishop Priest or Deacon was appropriated to any particular Church till after that time by degrees they came to be selled to certain Churches by Ecclesiastical Law and Custome So that during the time of the Apostles themselves and their companions whom they associated to themselves for their assistance were in common the Governours of Churches then founded according as they fell out to be present in these Churches to whom they had the most relation by planting and watering the faith planted in them either by virtue of the agreement taken by the Apostles within themselves or by the appointment of some of them if we speak of their companions and assistances But afterwards when the faith came to be setled then as those which had been Governours of Churches in common before became chief Governours of particular Churches to whom by lawful consent they became appropriated so were they provided of Priests and Deacons to assist and attend them in the execution of their office towards the body of Christians then mulplyed in severall Churches I do confess to have declared an opinion something differing from both of these sayings about the reason here demanded As not being perswaded either that the Order of Presbyters was not yet introduced into the Church during the Apostles time or that chief Governours were not appropriated and setled in some Churches during the same though I have no need to undertake that in all they were believing and maintaining that the Apostles themselves in the Churches of their own planting and watering were acknowledged chief Governours in ordering notwithstanding their extraordinary both Power not confined to any one Church and graces and abilities porportionable In which regard and under which limitation visible to the common sense of all men of their own and the next ages I do maintain Bishops to be their successors Whereupon it follows that I allow the name of Bishops in the Apostles writings to comprehend Priests also because of the mater of their function common to both though with a chief Power in the Bishop in Priests so limited as to do nothing that is to say nothing of consequence to his Power over the whole Church without his consent and allowance But this variety of opinion in expounding these Scriptures draweth after it no further consequence to prejudice the primitive Law of Goverment in the Church then this That there are more waies then one to answer the seeming probabilities pretending to make the evidence of Catholick Tradition unreconcileable with the truth of the Scriptures in the agreement whereof the demonstration of this truth consisteth I conceive therefore I might very well referre my self to the Readers free judgement to compare the reasons which I have produced with those that since have been used Notwithstanding I shall not think much briefly according to the model of this design to express the sense I have of the most native meaning of the most texts alleged in this businesse that I may have opportunity to point out again the peremptory exceptions which â—re visible in them either to the imagination of mungrill Prâ—sbyteries compounded of Clergy and People during the time of the Apostles or of the chief Power of any such Presbyteries in their resepective Churches CHAP. XVII The Power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the Interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Flders FIrst then as the name of Apostle in the Originall meaning is very general to signifie any commissary Proxy delegate or Ambassador so the use of it in the Apostles writings is larger then to be confined to the twelve For when S. Paul saith That our Lord appeared to the twelve afterwards to all the Apostles 1 Cor. XV. 5. 7. He must needs understand other Apostles besides the twelve perhaps the same that he meant where he reckoned Andronicus and Junias remarkable among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. And that in another â—ense then Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles Act. XIV 4. 14. For the name of Apostle intimating whose Apostle he is that is called an Apostle we have no reason to count Paul and Barnabas any mans Apostles but our Lord Christs though they were first sent with the blessing of such Doctors and Prophets as the Church of Antiochia then had Acts XIII 1. 2 3. whose authority cannot in any reason be thought to extend so farre as to constitute an Apostle parâ—llel to the Twelve which S. Paul so oft so expresly challenges For since we see their commission is immediately from the Holy Ghost that is from God we are not to value their right by the solemnity which it is visibly conferred upon them with Unlesse you will say that by virtue of that Imposition of Hands they were messengers and Commissaries of that Church and that they then appeared to be no more then so though afterwards God set on them marks of the same authority with the Twelve Truly those whom S. Paul calls false Apostles transferring themselves into the Apostles of Christ 1 Cor. XI 13. must neâ—ds be understood to have pretended commission from our Lord Christ himself For hereupon they stood upon it that they had
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
Soveraign over the Churches of these Cities For that were inconsequent to the power of the Apostles whence it proceedeth who as I have proved were equall among themselves and the authority of their companions and successors into whom it stood immediately divided But that it should have that eminence ovâ—r them and by consequence much more over the Churches of inferiour Cities as is requisite to the directing of such maters as might come to be of common interesse to the whole Church to such an agreement as might preserve the unity thereof with advantage to the common Christianity Now when I name these Churches of Antiochia and Alexandria for examples sake supposing that the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces of the Empire had also their eminence over the Churches of inferiour Cities within the said Provinces I suppose also that they accordingly approached to the dignity and priviledges of that at Rome the power of obliging the whole which for the State under God rested then in the Emperour alone within the Empire rosting for the Church in the successors of the Apostles according to this weight and greatnesse of their Churches For though Tertulliane de praescrip Haerct cap. XXXVI challengeth that the very Chairs which the Apostles sate in the very authentick leters which they sent to the Churches of Corinth Thessalonica Philippi and Ephesus were extant in his time in the said Churches yet doth it not therefore follow that the priviledges of those Churches should be all the same with all Churches wherein the Apostles sate which would necessarily follow if nothing were to come into consideration but that they were founded by the Apostles themselves For supposing that the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors indowed with the same Power as not confined by any act of the Apostles under whom they claimed to the contrary appointed that regard should be had to the priviledge of the Cities wherein they were planted it follows of reason that S. Peter for the Jews and S. Paul for the Gentiles at least principally should make it their businesse to plant Chistianity and to found the Church of Rome And that the eminence of these Apostles one chief by our Lords choice the other eminent for his labours may very well be alleged for the priviledges of that Church and yet the consequence not hold in other Churches for which it may be alleged that they were the seats of Apostles because the reason for which these Apostles bestowed their pains there hath a reason for it to wit the eminence of that City Here you easily see that deriving the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome not from S. Peters personall pre-eminence onely which it would be impossible to show how it comes intailed upon that Church the pre-eminence of the Apostles not resting in all their Churches but from an Order given out by the Apostles advancing the priviledges of Churches according the secular eminence of Cities I say you easily see that the concurrence of S. Paul with S. Peter to the founding of it is a confirmation of that ground whereupon the preeminence thereof standeth whereas that opinion which derives it onely from the personal eminence of S. Peter admits not the concurrence of S. Paul to the constitution of this pre-eminence Wheresoever therefore you find S. Peter and S. Paul acknowledged joynt founders thereof in the writings of the Fathers all that must be understood to setle the opinion which I here advance and to destroy that plea which derives it from the Soveraign power of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles And Epiphanius is not the onely author where you find it the disputes of these times will afford you more then this abridgement can receive But I conceive I have made a fair way to the ground for it by observing some probabilities that S. Paul should be head of those that turned Christians of Jews as S. Peter of Gentiles at Rome Which I will here confirm by expounding the inscription of Ignatius his Epistle to the Romanes according to it othâ—rwise not to be understood It addresseth to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which governeth in the place of the fields at Rome The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Act. XXVII 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain signifies the Country 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the fields as a suburbe to Rome and being the place where S. Peter was buried and where the Jews of Rome then dwelt as we learn by Philo Legatione ad Caium speaking of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He knew that great quarter of Rome which is beyond the River Tiber to be held and inhabitated by Jews most of whom were Romanes and Libertines For being brought captives into Italy they were set free by their Masters without constraining them to adulterate any of their Countrie Laws Hereupon the Synagogue of the Libertines Act. VI. 9. is the Synagogue of the Romane Jews Now S. Peters Church we know is to this day in the Vaticane as S. Pauls in the way to Ostia as from the beginning we understand by Caius in Eusebius Hist Eccles II. 25. the places of their burials were Which circumstance points them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians at Rome the other of those that were converted being Gentiles For that the Vaticane was then the Jewry at Rome we learn also by Tully in his Oration pro Flacco where he complains that his cause was heard in the fields of M ars prope gradus Aurelios that the Jews who were offended at Flaccus for prohibiting them to send their oblations to Jerusalem when he was Governour of Asia might come in and discountenance the cause For plainly this was hard by the Bridge that passed out of those fields into the Vaticane where the Gate called Porta Aurelia stood hard by S. Peters Church to which Gate it seems there were steps to go up which he calleth there gradus Aurelios It is also easie to see that this supposition draweth the ground and reason of the Superiority of Churches originally from the act of Temporall Power which constituteth the eminence of Cities over other Cities But neverthelesse immediately from the act of the Church or of those that have authority to oblige the Church taking the Superiority of Cities as it is for the most reasonable ground of planting in them the most eminent Churches but by their own authority providing that so it be observed Therefore it is to be considered that the Church is by Gods command howsoever by his promise to continue one and the same till the coming of our Lord unto judgement But the dominion of this World upon which the greatnesse of Cities is founded changes as Gods providence appoints Besides that
given generally to every Church For whereas our Lord elsewhere gives unto S. Peter this power of binding and loosing there is no doubt that in Peter bearing the form of the Church he gave it to all the Apostles Proceeding to allege S. Jerome and S. Augustine to the same purpose And upon the words of our Lord Feed my sheep Quod Petro dictum est omnibus Christi discipulis dictum est Hoc namque fuerunt caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus fuit pastores sunt omnes grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis tunc unanimi consensu pascebatur deincepâ— a successoribus eorum communi curâ pascitur That which is said to Peter is said to all Christs Disciples For what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles They are all shepherds but the flock appears to be but one which as then it was fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent so is it since fed by their successors with common care These Fathers then when they give this for the reason why our Lord gives Peter onely the Keys of the Church with the charge of feeding his flock that hee bore the person and form of the Church suppose the Church to be a body compacted of all Churches ruled by the same form of Government for the preserving of unity in the whole as the colledge of the Apostles consisteth of so many persons indowed all with one and the same power for whom one answers to signifie the unity of the whole Whereby it appeareth first negatively That the Church did uot understand any Soveraign Power to be committed to S. Peter by these words Then positively that our Lord speaking to him alone signifies there by the course which he hath established for preserving unity in the Church To wit that all Churches being governed in the same form the greater go before the lesse in ordering maters of common concernment S. Cypriane from whom all the rest have this doctrine hath cleared the intent of it when he thus writeth Epist ad Jubai LXXII Manifestum est autem ubi per quos remissa peccatorum datur quae in baptismo scilicet daâ—ur Nam Petro primum dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in caelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hoc cum dixisset inspiravit aâ—t illis Accipite spiritum sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ— praepositis in Evangelicâ lege dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sinnes is given when it is given in Baptism For our Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and in whom and from whom he instituted and declared the original of unity in it this power that it should be loosed in heaven whatsoever he had loosed on earth And after his resurrection also speaking to the Apostles he saith As my Father sent me so send I you And having said this he breathed on them saying If ye remit any mans sinnes they shall be remitted him if ye retain any mans they shall be retained Whence we understand that it is not lawful for any but those that are set over the Church and grounded in the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sinnes Because Peter received the Keys therefore all and every Church that is those that are over it and none else can give remission of sinnes by admitting to Baptism Shall we think the consequence extravagant having so clear a ground for it to wit the unity of the whole Church setled upon two ingredients the same form in all Churches but with dependence of the lesse upon the greater Churches If any man say all this is disputed by Cypriane to prove that Baptism given by Hereticks is void wherein he hath been disowned by the Church And that therefore the reasons are not well grounded from whence it is inferred The answer is easie because he inferrs upon them that which though true they do not inforce That a man cannot lawfully baptize is not so much as that if he do baptize his Baptism is void S. Cypriane took both for one and therefore his reason is good though it conclude not his purpose Why not void being unlawful I refer my self to what S. Augustine since hath disputed and the Church decreed and practised And here you have one ground for that distinction between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing one with another the Bishops and Priests of several Churches according to the original constitution of the Church I allow S. Hierome to say that wheresoever there is a Bishop whither at Rome or at Eugubium an obscure City near Rome he is of the same worth as of the same Priesthood Epist LXXXV For as to the inward Court of the conscience the office that is Ministred by the Bishop or Priest of a lesse Church is no lesse effectual then by one of a greater Church But as to the outward Court of the Church supposing all Churches governed in the same form but the Churches of lesse Cities subordinate to the Churches of greater Cities by the appointment of the Apostles the act of the lesse Church of the Bishop or a Priest of it cannot be of that consequence to the whole as the act of the greater Church And so though the Bishop or the Priest of a litle Church be of the same Order with the Bishop or Priest of a great Church yet the authority of the one extendeth without comparison further then the authority of the other can do And you may perhaps dispute whether this authority produce any such as Jurisdiction or not but whether there be ground hereupon to distinguish between the Order which is the same in both and the authority which it createth in which there is so great difference you cannot dispute Certainly the office of a Deacon in a greater Church may be of more consequence to the whole then many Bishops can bring to pass As the assistance of Athanasius in the office of a Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea was of more consequence to the obtaining of the decree of the Council then the votes of many Bishops there CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The businesse of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine AMongst the proceedings of the Church I will first alledge that of the Church of Rome
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
in the visible communion of the same offices of Christianity if it be free for the parts of iâ— to withdraw themselves from the Lawes which have been received by the whole to limit the circumstances of their communion though not the conditions of it I have but one point more to mention before I leave this subject concerning what offices every degree is by Gods Law or by Canon Law able to minister in the Church necessary here to be mentioned where I have showed what persons are inabled to give Law to the Church and to do by consequence those acts wherein the execution of Law consisteth For by the premises the truth of that which I have proposed in the Right of the Church more clearly appears then it could appear there that the offices of Christianity which severall degrees are inabled to minister do argue the interest of those respective degrees in the Government of the Church Ordinations therefore wholly reserved to the Bishop as not to be made without his consent Saving such Ordinations of inferiour Ministers as not much concerning the state of his Church he may by way of delegation referre to his Presbyters or rurall Bishops Excommunications likewise as concerning the beeing of every Christian as a member of the Church As for the assistance concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of each Cathedrall Church in and to the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons I referre my selfe to that which I have said elsewhere Seeing it were a thing ridiculous to require that all the Presbyters of each Diocese should concurre to all such Ordinances As for the ordaining of Bishops the rule is plain that being a part of the Provincial Synode no meere Bishop is to be ordained without the consent of the Synode the Bishop of the Mother City alwayes concurring Though all reason requiring that he who is to govern be taken out of the bosome of those whom he is to govern there is a right and priviledge of nomination due to the Clergy and of approbation or suffrage to the people of the Church For it is a thing most certain that the interest of the People in the Elections of Bishops in the ancient Church which is still more clear in the Election of Presbyters was grounded onely upon the knowledge which they must needs have of persons proposed either to approve them which was called their suffrage or otherwise Not that they had any right to go before their leaders the Clergy in nomination or to oblige the consent of the Synode of the Province Though it is true that many times they did prevent both and prevail and might without inconvenience so do when the eminence of some person was so discernable that their grosser judgements could noâ— mistake in the choice though transgressing their rank in demanding even the worthiest before their turn came The same rule holds in the ordaining of superiour Bishops seeing they have all their Church their People their Clergy and their Synode The difference that S. Austine Breviculo Collationis III. diei observes in the consecrating of the Pope that it is done by â—he Bishop of Ostia not by any Metropolitane is an exception to a rule So was Dionysâ—us ordained in the year CCLIX if we beliâ—ve the acts of S. Laurence And therefore that Pelagius I. was ordained by two Bishops and a Priest of Ostia as his life in Anastasius relateth by the strictness of the Nicâ—ne Canon voids it For how can he have caried the greater part of the Bishops The condescension of the Apostles Canon and consent ex postfacto might make it good and valid by the same reason as afore The state of particular Christians is not of such consequence to the Châ—rch that it should be regularly the businesse of a Synod though for the assistance concurâ—ence and consent of the Clergy of each Church I referre my self to that which I have said elsewhere â—nd which would be too particular to be debated in this abridgement As for the mater of Penance in things that come not to the knowledge of the Church I have no cause to repent me of thâ—t which I have said in the Right of the Church where I have showed that Pâ—nance and Absolution in the inward Court of the Conscience extends as farre as the Communion of the â—ucharist from which Penance excludes and to which Absolution restores That all Priests and none but Pâ—iests receive by their Ordination power of celebrating the Eucharist that is to say of consecrating and communicating the same and that it cannot be done by any other without very great Sacrilege And that for an argument of the Power of the Keys in the hand of every Priest though limitable by the rule and custome of the Church to the inward Court of the conscience That the offices of Preaching and Baptizing â—re regularly communicable to Deacons but in case of necessity even to thoâ—e of the people alwaies by delegation from their Superiors the Bishops In sign whereof neither was it the cusâ—ome that any man should consecrate the Eucharist Preach or Baptize in the Bishops prâ—sâ—nce but himself or by his appointment As for the reading of the Scriptures and the sâ—nging of Psalms in the Church it is so well known to have been the Deacons office in the ancient Church that there were severall ranks of Deacons appointed for those sâ—vâ—ral works Lectores Psâ—lâ—ae which now like those in the Church of Rome help to make the inferiour Orders the rule of the Church being grounded upon undeniable wisdome and the authority of S. Paul forbidding novâ—ces to be promoted that exercise in the inferiour offices of the Clergy might be a condition requisiâ— to advance unto superiour degrees in the Clergy Now for thâ— celebrating and blessing of Mariage by Priests only I must go no further at present because having showed that it is to be allowed by the Church I have not yet showed that it is to be solemnized by the blessing of the Church CHAP. XXI Of the times of God service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of meats and measure of Fasting Of the keeping o four Lords Birthday and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service HAving thus showed first what are the Powers of the Church and then in whose hands they rest and having said before that the determining and limiting of all circumstances for the exercise of those offices of Gods service for the Communion whereof the Church stands and also of thoâ—e qualities which render men capable to communicate in that same is totally reserved to the Church so farr as Gods Law hath not prevented the determination of it We are now to consider the
if the fourth Commandment be in force they cannot be obliged to keep the Lords day Is it not an even wager that not doubting the fourth Commandment to be in force as they are told they shall keep the Saturday which if it be in force they ought to keep rather then the Lords day which finding no reason for it because they are told none they will presently imagine to be a Popish custome I know there is one argument which is very plausible to induce well meaning Christians into that zeal which we see they have for the strict keeping of the Lords day which they call the Sabbath Because this opinion will oblige the world to exercise more works of godlinesse and to abstain from more of those debauches which Festivals occasion in vulgar people then otherwse To which for the present I will say onely this That having showed the truth to be as it is I can oblige all Christians to believe that Gods glory and the advancement of his service cannot be grounded well but upon the truth And therefore I may well demand their patience till I come by and by to show the ground of the mistake which they are carried away with to think that Gods glory and service is not more plentifully provided for by the Laws and customes of the Catholick Church then by strict keeping the Sabbath upon a false ground which hindring the effect of those Laws by consequence hinders Gods service But now all this being setled what is there remaining to alledge why Christians should be bound to keep the Lords day but the act of the Apostles by virtue whereof it came into force among all Christians in all Churches For it would be too ridiculous to allege that it is grounded upon those Scriptures whereby it appeareth that it was kept under the Apostles either as a reason sufficient or as distinct from the authority of the Apostles For these Scriptures being the Scriptures of the Apostles we can derive no authority from them but that which we first suppose in the Apostles I suppose here that no man will say that our Lords appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection upon that day was enough to make it a Law or evidence that it was so made unlesse his Apostles could testifie that he appeared to that purpose As for the rest if it may by circumstance appear that under the Apostles they did assemble to the service of God upon the Lords day will it therefore follow that all Chistians are bound to do the same Or can any more then this appear by that which I alledged out of the Apostles writings If there could the writings of the Apostles being their act as much as any act whereby they could declare an intent to oblige the Church there will be nothing to bind it to keep the Lords day but the authority of the Apostles But he that will give his own common reason leave to speak shall hear it say that it is not their words that oblige us to it but the originall and universall custome of the Church evidencing that they used to celebrate that day with an intent to introduce the obligation of it into the Church For of this original and universal custome having as yet found no question made on any side I hold it superfluous to take pains to make evidence of that which no man questions When Justine the Martyr presenting to the Empire an Apology for all Christans declareth that their custome was to assemble on the Lords day to serve God with the offices of Christianity which there he describeth had it not been to abuse himself and the Empire to declare that for the custome of all Christians which was indeed the custom of some but of others not Whither Easter was to be kept upon the fifteenth day of the first Moon upon which our Lord suffered or upon the next Lords day upon which he rose again was a dispute in the Church as ancient as the Apostles The former custome having been delivered to the Churches of Asia by S. John the later to the West by S. Peter and S. Paul But what ground could there be for this dispute had not the first day of the week been honoured and observed above the rest in regard of our Lords rising again Certainly the Eâ—ionites were one of the ancientest sects thar rose up against the Church and they as Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 27. keeping the Sabbath as the Jews and because the Jews kept it observing also the Lords day because the Christians kept it It is true that among the Eastern Christians the Saturday was observed for the service of God many ages after condescension to the Jews in regard whereof the observation of Moses law was in use after Christ in some parts of the Church more in some lesse was quite out of date But that is no argument that the Lords day was not kept when the Sabbath was kept to them who see S. Paul keep the Lords day Act. XX. 7. within the time of compliance with the Jewes For the offices which God is served with by the Church are pleasing to him at all times as well as in all places whereas the keeping of the Sabbath upon any day but a Saturday would have been a breach of his Law For when the other Festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths in the Law that is not to say that the Sabbath was kept upon them for I have showed you two severall measures of rest due upon them by the Law but that they participated much of the nature of the Sabbath and therefore may be called with an addition such or such Sabbaths but not absolutely the Sabbath Therefore when Christians afterwards continued the custome of serving God upon the Sabbath that is the Saturday it is to be understood that they served God with the offices of Christianity not with the rest of the Jews Sabbath If it be further demanded whither the obligation of the Lords day do not depend upon the precepâ— of the Sabbath so that it may be called with an addition the Sabbath of Christians though not absolutely the Sabbath because that nâ—me is possessed already by the Saturday in the language of all Christians as well as Jews till men affected an abuse in the name to bring their mistake into mens minds To this I answer that if the Lords day had no dependance upon the precept of the Sabbath we could not give a reason why one day of seven is observed For the choice of the number could not come by chance And I cautioned afore that the Resurrection of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve God on the Sunday as the creation of the world was why the Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday But this dependance was not immediate because I showed also that this was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us The act of the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation necessary
the enemies of Gods Church as of the members of it I conceive I have named the substance of these prayers the particulars whereof you may see in our English Litanies to be the same that the most ancient Writers of the Church witness to have been used after the exposition of the Scriptures whether they describe the celebration of the Eucharist as doth Justine Martyr or not as Tertullian And from hence I hope to resolve that question which I have proposed in another place and no man yet hath taken in hand to answer Why as well in the Ancient Latine as well as Eastern Liturgies as also by the testimonies of S. Austine and others it appeareth that these Prayers are twice repeated at the Eucharist The reason being this that first those who offered the creatures of which the Eucharist is consecrated and by which offering the assembly of the Church was maintained might testifie that they do it out of devotion to God hoping by so doing to obtain at his mercy not onely their own but the necessities of all other orders and estates by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross which at present they intend to commemorate and repete Which notwithstanding the elements being consecrated and the Body and Bloud of Christ once sacrificed on the Cross here and now represented they offer to him the same Prayers again presenting him as it were the same sacrifice here and now represented for the motive inducing him to grant the said necessities And therefore have reason to account this service the most eminent service that Christians can offer to God and those prayers the most effectual that they can address unto him as being proper to that Christianity in virtue whereof they hope to obtain their prayers and of nothing besides That which remains of this point is onely the consideration of those prayers which are made at those assemblies of the Church which pretend not to celebrate the Eucharist how they may appear to be prescribed by Christianity Where I shall need to say nothing of such Prayers as are to be made by Christian assemblies for the necessities of all Orders and Estates whether within or without the Church because I have already spoken of them when they are made upon occasion of celebrating the Eucharist The difference between that occasion and other occasions which the Church may have to frequent the same Prayers when the Eucharist is not celebrated inferring no difference in that which is prescribed to the Church or by the Church either in the mater or form of the same As for the Prayers which every assembly maketh for it self concerning the common necessities of all Christians as such which I conceive were first called Collecta because the assembly ended in them and was dismissed with them from gathering the same as the Mass hath the name in Latine Missa from dismissing it as I observed afore I shall need to say as little having showed by what authority all Christians are to be limited in such things as have been left unlimited by our Lord and his Apostles For the necessities of Christians as Christians become determinable if any thing cōcerning them become questionable by the same authority that governeth every Church upon such terms as it ought to govern the same But if any cause appear as many ages since there hath appeared necessity enough why particular Churches should be ruled in those forms by Synods that is by the common authority of more and greater Churches for maintaining unity in the whole which the form of Church Service may be a great means to violate as wee know by lamentable experience it remains that the same means be imployed for maintaining unity in this point which God hath provided for maintaining the same in all cases So that supposing that in process of time whether by direct or by indirect means the Church of Rome hath gained so much ground of the whole Western Church as to conform their Prayers and in a maner the whole Order of divine Service to the patern prescribed by it which I take to have been the case at the Reformation with all the Western Church it cannot be alleged for a sufficient cause of changing that the Church of Rome hath no right to require this conformity by Gods Law But the question must be whether the uniformity introduced by the same be so well or so ill for the prejudice or advancement of Christianity that it shall be requisite for the interest thereof to proceed to a change without the consent of the Church Which if it be true then whatsoever hath been objected to the Church of England upon this Title as agreeable to the form used by the Church of Rome not as disagreeable to Christianity is to be damned as ignorantly and maliciously objected for to make division in the Church without cause These same reasons will serve to resolve how necessary it is that those Prayers wherewith the rest of Ecclesiastical Offices Baptism Confirmation Penance the Visitation of the Sick and Mariages are celebrated be of a certain form and prescribed by the authority of the Church It were a thing strangely unreasonable for him that hath considered that which I have said in the second book how our Christianity and salvation is concerned in the Sacrament of Baptism and how much the disputes of Religion that divide the Western Church depend upon the knowledg of it to imagine that all those who must be admitted by the Church to the ministring of it can be able to express the true intent of it in such form of words as may be without offense and tend to the edification of Gods people in a thing so nearly concerning their Christianity Rather it may justly be questioned whether they that take upon them to baptize and consecrate the Eucharist not grounding themselves upon the authority of the Church supposing the Faith of the Church expressed in such a form as the Church prescribeth but their own sense concerning the ground and intent of those Sacraments Do any thing or nothing That is whether they do indeed minister the Sacrament of Baptism necessary to the salvation of all Christians or onely profane the Ordinance of God by professing an intention of doing that which is not indeed that Sacrament under pretense of celebrating it Whether they do indeed consecrate the elements to become sacramentally the Body and Bloud of Christ and so communicate the same to those which receive or onely profane those holy mysteries of Christianity and involve his people in the same guilt by pretending to celebrate so holy an Office and in effect doing nothing as not knowing what ought to be done nor submitting to those that do A consideration very necessary in regard of those who forsake the Baptism which they received in their infancy in the Church of England to be baptized again by new Dippers For it is true the Church hath admitted the Baptism of Hereticks for good but not of all
Hereticks Of those whose Baptism S. Cyprian excepts against Epist ad Jubaianum it is manifest that the Church voiding the baptism of the Samosatenians by the Canon of Nicaea the baptism of other Hereticks by the Canons of Arles and Laodicea must needs make void the baptisms of the greatest part being evidently further removed from the truth which Christianity professeth than those whose baptism the said Canons disallow And though it is admitted according to the dictates of the School that these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost contain a sufficient form of this Sacrament Yet that holdeth upon supposition that they who use it do admit the true sense of this word I baptize intending thereby to make him a Christian that is to oblige him to the profession of Christianity whom they baptize Which what reason can any man have to presume of in behalf of those who renounce their baptism once received in the Church of England to be baptized again For all reason of charitable presumptions ceaseth in respect of those who root up the ground thereof by Schism and by departing from the Unity of the Church And besides that wee do not see them declare any profession at all according to which they oblige themselves either to believe or live which is reason enough to oblige others not to take them for Christians not demanding to be taken for Christians by professing themselves Christians wee see the world over-spread with the vermine of the Enthusiasts who accepting of the Scriptures for Gods word upon a perswasion of the dictate of Gods Spirit not supposing the reason for which they are Christians do consequently believe as much in the dictates of the same that are not grounded upon the Word of God as upon those that are So that the imbracing of the Scriptures makes them no more Christians than Mahomets acknowledging Moses and Christ in the Alcoran makes him a Christian For whosoever is perswaded that hee hath the Spirit of God not supposing that it is given him in consideration that hee professeth Christianity supposing therefore the truth thereof in order of reason before hee receive the Spirit may as well as Mahomet in the Alcoran frame both the Old and New Testament to whatsoever sense his imagination which hee takes for Gods Spirit shall dictate This reason why it is necessary to follow the forms which the Church prescribes is more constraining in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist as more nearly concerning the Christianity and salvation of Christians But yet it takes place also in the rest of those Offices whereby the Church pretends to conduct particular Christians in the way to life everlasting Hee that supposes that which I have proved how necessary it is that every sheep of the flock should acknowledg the common Pastor of his Church that the Pastor should acknowledg his flock upon notice of that Christianity which every one of them in particular professeth though hee may acknowledg that originally there is no cause why every Bishop should not prescribe himself the form of it in his own Church yet supposing that experience hath made it appear requisite for the preservation of Unity by Uniformity that the same form should be used must needs finde it requisite that it be prescribed by a Synod greater or less At such time as publick Penance was practiced in the Church when the Penitents were dismissed before the Eucharist with the Blessing and Prayers of the Church can it seem reasonable to any man that any Prayers should be used in celebrating an action of that consequence but those which the like authority prescribeth So much the more if it be found requisite that the practice of private Penance and of the inner Court of the Conscience be maintained in the Church For how should it be fit that every Priest that is trusted with the Power of the Keyes in this Court should exercice it in that form which his private fansy shall dictate Of Ordinations I say the same as of Confirmations Of the Visitation of the Sick and of Mariage as of Penance Onely considering that it is not likely that the reason whereupon the celebration of Mariage is an Office of the Church deriving from those limitations which the precept of our Lord hath fastned upon the Mariage of Christians should be so well understood by all that are to solemnize Matrimony as to do their Office both so as the validity of the contract and so as the performance of that Office which the parties undertake doth require In fine having showed that the Service of God upon the Regular Hours of the day is a Custom both grounded upon the Scripture and tending to the maintenance and advancement of Christian Piety It remains that I say that the form and measure of that devotion which all estates are to offer to God at those hours cannot otherwise be limited to the edification of all than by the determination of the Church They that please themselves with that monstrous imagination that no Christian is to be taught what or how to pray till hee finde himself inabled by the Spirit of God moving him to pray will easily finde that they can never induce the greater part of Christians to think themselves capable of discharging themselves to God in so high an Office as the sense of their Christianity requires They that observe the performance of those who take it upon them shall finde them sacrifice to God that which his Law forbiddeth the mater of their Prayers not consisting with our common Christianity For of a truth it is utterly unreasonable to imagine that God should grant inspirations of the Holy Ghost for such purposes as our common Christianity furnisheth And therefore the consequences of so false a presumption must be either ridiculous or pernicious Now if any man say that hee admits not the premises upon which I inferr these consequences it remaines that the dispute rest upon those premises and come not to these consequences Onely let him take notice that I have showed him the true consequences of my own premises which hee must reprove as inconsistent with Christianity if hee take upon him to blame the premises for any fault that hee findeth with their true consequences And to say truth as the substance and mater of Christianity is concerned in all these Offices though in some more in some less and by consequence in the form of celebrating them So the Unity of the Church is generally concerned in the form of celebrating them all in as much as any difference insisted upon as necessary and not so admitted by others is in point of fact a just occasion of division in the Church And therefore all little disputes of these particulars necessarily resort to the general Whether God hath commanded the Unity of the Church in the external communion of the members thereof or not Which having concluded by the premises I conceive I have founded
cause can be alleged why there should be a Church that is a Body and an authority to Order that Body if there be no Office for which it should assemble because that which it understandeth not is no such Office For I have laid this for a ground that the Society of the Church subsisteth for the Service of God at the common Assemblies of the Church in the Unity of the same Christianity So that though it may be alleged that the Unity of Christianity may be preserved by the Society of the Church though the Service of God be not understood yet the end for which it is preserved is not compassed when the Service of God is not performed by those who understand it not is Christianity requireth Certainly it is a question to be demanded of those of the Church of Rome why they do not preach to the people in Latine as well as they celebrate the rest of Gods Service in that Language if they be content to submit themselves to S. Pauls doctrine For whatsoever reason they can allege why that in the Vulgar and the rest in Latine will rather serve to demonstrate that it would be more visibly ridiculous than that it is any more against S. Pauls doctrine But is it any more to the benefit of Gods people toward the obtaining of their necessities of God that they should assemble to offer him the devotions which they understand not than not to assemble or offer none For whatsoever may be said that the devotions of those who do understand what they do are available to the benefit of those who do not will hold nevertheless though they were not present nor pretended to do that which the Congregation doth provided that they have as good a heart to do that which the Congregation doth as they have being present at it Unless wee suppose that God values their hearts because they are there more than hee would value them being elswhere Nor can I possibly imagine what can be said to all this but onely in abatement of that ignorance in the Latine of the Church service which the Nations of the Western Church may be supposed to attain to whether by custome of being used alwayes to the same form or because the Vulgar languages of Italy Spain and France being derived from the Latine may inable even unletered people to understand that or the most part of that which is said in Latine at the Church service which is the reason why the Jews after their return from Captivity having changed their Mother Hebrew into the vulgar tongue of the Babylonians and Châ—ldeans being indeed derived from it with lesse change then the Italian from the Latine maintained notwithstanding the service of God in their originall Hebrew so farr as we are able to understand by the circumstances produced elsewhere And though at this present some parts of it are rather Chaldeâ— then Hebrew yet they are now in such a condition that a great many of them are not able to attain either that language or the Hebrew but speak and understand onely that language where they are bred the service which they use in their Synagogues remaining in the Hebrew And the Greeks at this day having got a vulgar language as much differing from the ancient learned Greek as the Italian from the Latine notwithstanding cease not to exercise the serviceâ— of God in the learned Greek which they understand not Which the Western Nations and Nothern may continue to do with as little burthen as they voluntarily undergo least they should give the minds of rude people cause to make more doubt then they see upon a change which they see And truly I do think this consideration of preserving unity in the Church of such weight that I do not think it was requisite when the Latine tongue began to be worn out of use by litle and litle through the breaches made by the Germane Nations upon the Western Empire that the service of the Church should straight-way be put into the Languages of those Nations who were every day changing their languages and learning the Latine or rather framing new languages by mixing their own with the Latine Neither will I undertake to determine the time the state in which the Church first becomes or became obliged to provide this change for the same reason For it is evident that it had not been possible to preserve correspondence and intercourse between all these Nations with the maintenance of unity in that Christianity which while this change was making they had received had not the knowledge of the Latine among them made it reasonable to continue the use of it in the Church service But as the case is now that a totall change of the Latine into new languages hath been accomplished and that the greatest part of Christian people by many parts are by no means able to learn what is done at the service of the Church confiningit to the Latine I must needs count it strange that the example of the modern Jews in their Synagogues or those miserably oppressed Christans in Turky should be alleged as to prove that there is nothing to oblige the whole Church to provide betâ—r for all Christians then those Churches do for their people or the Jews for their Synagogues when we dispute what ought to be done We should rather look to the originall practice of Christendom which there may be reason to intitle unto the Apostles and consequently the changes that may have succeeded to a defect of succeeding ages failing and coming short of their institutions then allege the practice of the Jews which the Christians have so litle cause to envy that they may well conclude them to be a people forsaken of God by the litle appearance of Religion in the offices which they serve God with or the necessities of ignorant and persecuted Christians for a rule to Churches flourishing with knowledge and means of advancing Gods service If from he beginning when by the means of those who spoke Greek and Latine or other languages used within the Empire from whence the tidings of the Gospel came other Nations had received the service of God in those languages wherein the Churches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria or Antiochia or possibly other Churches from which their Christianity was planted did celebrate it they might with some colour of reason have argued that so it ought to continue in the Western Church But since it appeareth that the service of God hath been prescribed in the Arabick the Syriack the Ethiopick the Coptick the Sclavonian the Russe and other â—orâ—ain languages what can a man inferr from the practice of the Church of Rome not allowing the Saxons in Britain the Germanes in Almane and the North and Eastland Countries the Slavonians in Pole and Boheme and other parts the service of God in their Mother tongues towards the disputes of this time that they ought not to be allowed it but the inhansing of the Popes Power
requiring of those who acknowledge the same absolute conformity in things altogether needlesse to the unity of the Church the true end of all due Power in the Church For were conformity in this point necessary to the unity of the Church had the Power of the Church of Rome and of the Pope in behalf of it been such by virtue of the first instituting of it as might have required it why then was it not required from the beginning that the service of God through the whole Empire should be celebrated in Latine being the language which the mother Church of the mother City did use and farr more frequented then in Greece than now in the West which is forced to use it Seeing then it appeareth that there is nothing at all to be alleged for so great an inconvenience but that which I have alleged for it and which I acknowledge to be truly alleged and justly but not justly admitted it remaineth that the Church is provided by God of other Laws the observation whereof is and would be a cure to the danger alleged from the change of the publick service of God into the vulgar languages For this danger proceedeth from nothing but from the false pretense of absolute and infallible authority in the Church which is indeed limited by the truth of that Christianity whereupon the Church is grounded and for the maintenance whereof it subsisteth For though this pretense may be a mean to contain simple people in obedience to any thing which shall be imposed so long as they know not any thing better that they ought to have yet if conscience be once awaked with reasons convincing that the authority instituted by God in his Church is abused to the prejudice and hinderance of the salvation of Gods people it is no marvail either that they should neglect all their interest of this world to seek themselves redress or that they should mistake themselves in seeking it and think the redress to be the destroying of all authority in the Church So that the preventing of danger by the necessary reformation of abuses in Church maters must not be thought to consist in pretenses as inconsistent with the common good of the Churches as with the truth of Christianity But in submitting to those bounds which the grounds of Christianity evidently establisheth And which unlesse Christianity make people more untractable then all the rudenesse which they are born and bred with makes barbarous Nations and wilde Beasts the sense of those mischiefs which difference of Religion hath brought in and maintained in Christendome must needs have disposed them to imbrace and to cherish for the future avoiding of the same In the next place supposing the Eucharist as the rest of the service to be celebrated in a language vulgarly understood we are to debate whither the Eucharist require Communion or whether the private Masses now allowed and countenanced in the Church of Rome be of the institution of our Lord and his Apostles Nor shall I need to use many words to free the term of private Masses from the exception which is sometimes made That all Masses are publick actions of the Church repeating the Sacrifice of Christ crucified to the benefit of his Church For seeing the term of a private Mass signifieth a thing visible The celebration of that Eucharist whereof no body but the Priest that consecrates it doth communicate I ask no man leave to use the term signifying no more by it but putting the rest to debate whither as de facto in the Church of Rome so de jure according to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles the sacrifice of Christ crucified is and ought to be either repeated or represented and commended by celebrating the Eucharist so as no body but the Priest that consecrates to communicate or whether the institution of our Lord require that Christians communicate in the Eucharist which they celebrate A dispute wherein nothing that is said in the Scripture concerning the order and practice of our Lord and his Apostles can leave any doubt For though there may be mention of celebrating the Eucharist where there is no mention of communicating in it which is an argument meerly negative not from the Scripture but from this or that Scripture and of no consequence to say S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 14-17 1 Tim. II. 1-6 mentioneth the celebration of the Eucharist not mentioning any Communion therefore no body did communicate yet are we farr from the least inckling of any circumstance to show that there was this Sacrament celebrated when there was none but he that consecrated it to communicate Nay if we regard the institution Do this in remembrance of me referring as much to take eat and drinke as to the blessing or thanksgiving whereby I have showed that our Lord did consecrate If we regard S. Paul affirming that the bread which we bless and the cup which we drinke is the communion of the body and blood of Christ 1 Cor. X. 16. and reproving the Corinthians because the rich prevented the poor and suffered them not to communicate in their Oblations out of which the Eucharist was consecrated as I showed afore We shall be bold to conclude that so farr as appears by the Scripture all that did celebrate did communicate as all that assisted did celebrate if that be true which I proved afore that the Prayers of the Congregation is that which consecrates the Eucharist to wit supposing Gods Ordinance The same appears by Justine Martyr and other the ancientest Records of the Church that describe this office But I canot better express the sense of the Church in this point then by alleging the decretall Epistles of the Popes before Innocent the I. or his Predecessor Syricius which being forged by Isidore Mecater some DCC years after Christ as hath been discovered by men of much learning do notwithstanding contain this Rule that he who communicates not be not admitted to the service of the Church Which he that forged them would never have fathered upon the ancient Popes had it not been evident to all that were seen in the Canons of the Church that it was of old a mater of censure to be present at celebrating the Eucharist and not to communicate in it A thing evident enough by many Canons of Councils yet extant and foisted into those decretals to no other purpose but to make men believe in after ages that those Canons were made to prosecute and to bring to effect those things which the Popes had decreed afore as if their authority had been always the same as it was at the time of this forgery Now it is well enough known what pretenses have been made and what consequences drawn from the speculation of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross repeted or represented by this Sacrament to perswade Christendom that the benefit thereof in remission of sinnes and infusion of grace and all the effects of Christs Passion is derived upon Gods
had further to learne to make their Praises of God and prayers to God the more Christian He that understandeth this case by the Scriptures of the new Testament must conclude that all preaching is to make men Christians that the praises of God and prayers to God comprehending the Eucharist are the exercise of Christianity The one the next meanes to attaine salvation the other onely the meanes to attaine that meanes So that this dispute also resolveth into that of my second Book whether we are justified by believing that we are justified and predestinate Or by professing and living as Christians For supposing the state of salvation to be obtained by so believing and that so as not to be forfeited any more It is very reasonable to run infinitely after Sermons till a man find himselfe setled in so believing But so that then he shall believe that which he can have no reason supposing the Scriptures to believe Nor shall the frequenting of Sermons serve to show any resonable motive to believe But the very act of hearing a man speake out of the Pulpit by the glasse must be taken for the meanes appointed by God by which when he sees his time he will determine the Elect to believe leaving the Reprobate in their unbeliefe though perhaps after they have slept out more Sermons then the other have done So the opus operatum of hearing Sermons according to this opinion succeeds instead of the opus operatum of hearing Masses according to the corrupt practice of the Church of Rome And in this chang the worke of Reformation according to this opinion must consist But then it will be necessarily consequent that they who have attained this faith give over hearing sermons for the future and not onely Sermons but prayers and all other offices of Gods service and assemblies for the same according to the opinion of that Sect that now thinks themselves above ordinances Which Sect before ever it appeared I had understood by a person of integrity and knowledge that there was a difference of opinion among those who frequented and maintayned Sermons besides the order of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes in England Some thinking it a meanes of faith to confer of the sermon after it is don others laughing at so silly a mistake as thinking to attaine the state of salvation by reason and freewill not by Gods meer Grace Whereby it appeareth that whosoever as I doe makes the preaching of the Gospell that is not speaking out of a Pulpit but showing the reasons which Gods word proposeth to move men to be true Christians the meanes which Gods spirit useth to bring a man to the state of Grace is obliged to grant that it is no otherwise the meanes to maintaine a man in that state then as it is the meanes to maintaine him a good Christian And that his Christianity in the first place consisting in the publike service of God to which he becomes ingaged by being baptized into the Church The offices thereof are the immediate meanes of salvation to which as well as to the offices concerning other men and our selves all teaching of Christians immediately tendeth as all preaching to unbelievers at a distance Now let no man think that I take any pleasure in censuring the proceedings of forraine Churches which I could willingly have passed over in silence had not a pernicious affectation of being like them caryed those that liked not this order to destroy the very being of the English Church out of a desire to change the vertue of it for their oversight For now I must say whatsoever offence it may cause that when it had been well pleaded that the communion of the Eucharist ought to be restored in both kinds with the service of God in a known language And that order ought to be taken that preaching might be frequented for the instruction of the people to infer thereupon for a Law that there be no orders for holding any assembly of the Church without Preaching was to cure the abuse of Private Masses by degrading the Eucharist from the preeminence that it holdeth above all other offices that God can be served with by a Christian And that without colour from the scripture without precedent from any practice of the Church There have been indeed pretenses among us that the word which giveth efficacy to the Sacraments is the word preached Meaning thereby a sermon spoken out of the Pulpit And from hence hath proceeded the affectation of Christning Sermons as if that were the word whereof S. Austine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Nay this preaching afore meate in a long discourse instead of thanksgiving what is it but a mark of that sense which they give S. Paul when he saith that the creature is sanctified by the word of God prayer for the food of Christians 1 Tim. IV. 5 And when Sermons are so affectedly called the Meanes To wit of saving us Is it not manifest that they attribute vnto Sermons that which S. Paul Rom. X. 8-15 and the apostles elsewhere attribute to the preaching of the Gospell whereby a man becomes convict that he ought to become a Christian without which no Christian will grant any man can be saved Whereby we may see what consequence slight mistakes in the very signification of the words may and doe produce For having showed an evident difference between preaching the Gospell to those who as yet believe not and teaching those that are become Christians the further knowledg of their Christianity I may take for granted that it is a mistake when the difference is not made between preaching to an assembly of Christians and declaring the Gospell to unbelievers whom the Apostles could not deale with upon any supposition of Christianity but onely upon the force of those motives which they showed them to imbrace it to whom therefore the onely meanes of their salvation was the knowledge of those motives And though all Christians when they come among unbelievers are bound to preach Christ to them that is to declare unto them the reasons why they ought to be Christians so far as they are able to doe it without prejudice of Christianity Yet to preach it as the Apostles preached it planting with all the Church in which God should be served according to Christianity is that which no private man can doe without authority received by the Church from the Apostles From which authority all that is afterwards don in serving God by the Churches so planted must receive that warrant upon which Christians may ground themselves that it is agreeable to the will of God And upon these termes it is to be granted that sermons preached in the assemblies of Christians are the meanes of their salvation because that the allowance of the Church groundeth a presumption that they are according to Christianity But if this be wanting though it is not necessary that they should be contray to Gods word yet because there is no
to you to be the commandements of the Lord. Which is to say that all even Prophets are to be subject to the Apostles by consequence to none but them who have received commission from the Apostles For howshal any order he setled to maintain unity in the communion of Gods service upon any other principle but that upon which the Coirnthians are obliged to rest in this which therefore being setled by order from the apostles is from thencforth trusted with the teaching of Gods people and no man further then he is trusted by the same Neither is it any marvaile that in the Church of England after orders confirmed after possession of a Church license of preaching is granted by the Bishop Because there are divers offices as well concerning the cure of soules as the service of God in the Church to which men may be appointed by the Lawes of the Church who are not to be trusted with Preaching even to their own people but upon expresse submission to the Bishops correction in behalfe of his Church For if sufficient power be reserved the Bishop to provide for his flock it will be in him to provide instruction for them by such persons as he shall think fit to trust and if it be not in him so to doe the fault is in the Lawes abridging his power of making a cheerfull account to God for his people Howsoever from hence it may appeare how ridiculous a thing it is to judge of the instruction a Bishop affords his flock by the sermons himselfe preaches unlesse it could be thought that his lungs and sides could reach all his people For his fidelity in trusting such persons as are to be trusted with teaching his people and his care in watching over the performance of their trust extendeth alike to all and maketh his Clergy his instruments in feeding his flock And whatsoever may have decayed in this Order through the Church of England the restoring thereof by wholsom Lawes aswell Ecclesiastcall as Civill had been and is the Reformation of Christianity not the rooting up of the very foundations of the Church out of zeale to exirtpate the order of Bishops And since the licentiousnesse of preaching what any man can make of the Bible hath made so faire a way for so few years to the rooting up of Christianity with the Church what will there be to secure the consciences of Gods people that they may safely go to Church and trust their soules with the means of salvation that are there to be found but the restoring of Gods Church That is to say of that authority which he by his Apostles hath provided for the determining of all things concerning his publike service supposing the profession of that faith which the whole Church hath maintained from the beginning as received from our Lord by his Apostles Which if it be true the same reason will oblige all men to provide the meanes of salvation for themselves that is to follow them of their owne choice without direction or constraint of the Lawes in the meane time I doe not conceive it becomes me to say what ought to be as I conceive it behoves me to say what ought not to be This I will say having proved that the prayses of God and Prayers much more the Eucharist are principal in comparison of preaching which is subordinate That the assemblies of Gods people ought to be more frequent for them then they can be for heareing of Sermons as I have showed by the premises S. Paul commands to pray continually and David saith the praises of God shall be alwaies in his mouth not expressing the assemblies of Gods people but inferring that which I have said of the dayly service of God in publick in my book of the assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII I maintain there is no ground no precept no example no practise of dayly preaching like this for daily prayers which if it be true the confining of assemblies to sermons is to Gods disservice It will be said that S. Paul 1 Tim. IV. 2. Thus exhorteth Preach the word be instant in season out of season examine rebuke exhort with all long suffering and meeknesse And it is as easily answered that here is nothing to the purpose Instance in the preaching of the word refers to unbelievers To induce them to be Christians though out of season is alwaies seasonable Long-suffering and meeknesse in examining rebuking exhorting of Christians privately may be publikely if not according to order must needs be unseasonable Men seeme to imagin that there were Pulpits and Churches and audiences ready to heare the Apostles preach before men were Christians When they were they shall find that meanes of meeting was provided by Christian people according to their duty the order appointed by them and their successors That they sate upon their chaires in teaching challenging the authority by which they taught the people sometimes standing somtimes allowed to sit downe None but Deacons preached standing when the order and discipline of the primitive Church was in force To deal with those that were not Christians S. Paul must goe out into the Piazza or to the Exchange to Gentiles to do that which they did in the Synagogue or in the temple to the Jewes Acts XVII 7 11. 46. In preaching to Jewes it was their advantage to observe the orders of the Synogogue And yet he that shall peruse that which I have said in the book aforenamed shall never say that those assemblies were principally for preaching which the Apostles made use of to preach to the Synagogue When they had ordered the assemblies of Churches what have you in their writings to recommed frequent preaching but S. Pauls order in the use of these miraculous graces given the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV unlesse it be drawne into consequence that S. Paul prevailed till midnight Acts. XX. 7. as if the act of an Apostle being to depart were a precedent to the order of the Church Buâ— I have showed you in the foresaid book Chap X. that the Eucharists have a share in the use of the said graces and the worke of the said assemblies as also Hymnes of Gods praises And in â— Cor. XI you read very much of the Eucharist as also of praying Prophesying that is praysing God by Psalmes as I have said there Chap. V. without any mention of Preaching If the Doctrine of the Apostles be joyned with breaking of bread and Prayer Acts XI 42. If the Elders that laboure in the word and doctrine be preferred by S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 17. You have a solemn instruction concerning prayers and the Eucharist 1. Tim. II. 1 2. as also exhortations to frequent it Ebr. XIII 15. without any mention of preaching In fine there is nothing in the Scripture to question the ground which I setled afore As for the practice of the Church I will goe no further then Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles Cap. LIII neither commending nor blaming those that
thinne That the Ministers of the Church should performe the service thereof in their ordinary aparrel when they ministred it in grottes and caves to a few I marvaile not but count it reasonable That when all assemble wheat and chaffe good fish and bad all should be summoned to that apprehension of the work in hand which our common Christianity inforceth by the habit in which it is ministred it seemeth to me very unreasonable that any man should marvaile Imposition of hands is necessarily an act of authority Booz may say to the reapers The Lord be with you And they answer him The Lord blesse thee Ruth IV. 4. they may blesse him as well as he them And as the Priest saith to the people the Lord be with you so may they to him and with thy Spirit where there is nothing but matter of common charity in band But if Abraham pay Melchisedeck Tithes acknowledging his superiority and Melchisedeck thereupon blesse Abraham then the saying of the Apostle Heb. VII 7. without question the lesse is blessed by the better takes place Of this kinde is Jacobs blessing his Nephews by laying his hands on their heads Moses his blessing of Joshua the Priests blessing of the people The Israelites laying hands on the Levites Numb VIII 10. seems rather to signify the charging of the sinnes of the Congregation upon them that by them they might be expiated according to the Law But our Lord layes hands on the little children whom he blesses and his Apostles lay hands on them whom they cure Mark XVI 18. as Naaman thought that Elizeus would have laid hands on him praying for him So our Lord lifts up his hands over his disciples to blesse them because he could not lay hands on them all The Apostles laying hands on the seven Acts VI. 6. and the imposing of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. IV. 14. signifieth the authority that inchargeth them with their office And it is strange that any man pretending learning can attribute the ordinations made by Paul and Barnabas Acts XIV 23. to the votes of the people signified by holding up their hands The act of constituting them being expresly ascribed to Paul and Barnabas And therefore by imposition of their hands not by holding up the peoples hands Imposition of hands therefore as it is used by the Church succeeding the Apostles in that use signifieth that authority which the Church blesseth or prayeth for blessing in behalf of those whom she presumeth to be qualified for the blessing by so blessing which she prays for at Gods hands I am not to forget the signe of the Crosse though a ceremony which I cannot say the Church hath either precept or precedent for in the Scripture having prescribed that there is no presumption that it cometh not from the Apostles because no mention of it in Scripture Justine the Martyr mentioning the use of it Tertulliane and Saint Basil testifying that it was common to all Christians all times all parts of the Church whereof there is remembrance using it Chuse whether you will have Saint Paul when he saith In whom ye were sealed by the holy spirit of promise Ephes I. 13. and againe by whom ye are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes IV. 30. to intimate that the holy Ghost was given by Baptisme which was solemnized by signing with the signe of the Crosse Or that the Church took occasion upon those words to appoint that Ceremony to be used in baptizing it will neverthelesse remaine grounded that the use of it on all occasions in all times over all parts of the Church is to be ascribed to the Apostles And certainly there are many occasions for a Christian to have recourse to God for his grace upon protestation of his Christianity which is the condition upon which all grace of God becomes due when there is neither time nor opportunity to recollect his minde unto a formall addresse by praying to God All which this ceremony fitly signifieth What then if it be used by those who bethinke not themselves at all of that Christianity by which alone we may expect any benefit of Christs Crosse Who may seem to hold their Christianity needlesse promising themselves the benefit of it by the opus operatum of making a signe of the Crosse Does this hinder any man to use it as it ought to be used does it prejudice him that so uses it I will not say that there cannot nor did not consist any Reformation in laying this ceremony aside But I will say as of Prayers for the dead We know well enough whom there was a desire to content when this ceremony in the Eucharist was laid aside under Queen Elizabeth having been prescribed under Edward VI. Which seeing it hath not served the turne but that the unity of the Church is dissolved and so much more demanded of them that would be thought Reformed if yet any man man can say what is demanded I think my self obliged to maintaine in this point as in all the rest That the Reformation of the Church consists not in abolishing but in renewing and restoring the orders of the Catholick Church and the right intent of the same He that will take the paines to adde hereto that which I have said in the place quoted afore shall comprehend the reasons upon which I remaine satisfied in this whole point seeing there is no cause why I should either recede from any part of it or repeate it here againe That which remaineth for this place is the consideration of the nature and number of the Sacraments which being essentially ceremonies of Gods service the right resolution of the controversy concerning it must needs consist in distinguishing the grounds upon which and the intents to which they are instituted the difference whereof must make some properly Sacraments the rest either no Sacraments at all or in a severall sense and so to a severall purpose And truly of all the Controversies which the Reformation hath occasioned I see not lesse reason for either side to stand upon their terms then in this which stands upon the term of a Sacrament being not found in the Scriptures attributed either to seven or to two For being taken up by the Church that is to say by those Writers whom the Church alloweth and honoureth what reason can deny the Church liberty to attribute it to any thing which the power given the Church inableth it to appoint and to use for the obtaining of Gods blessing upon Christians Why should not any action appointed by the Church to obtaine Gods sanctifying grace by virtue of any promise which the Gospel containeth be counted a Sacrament At least supposing it to consist in a ceremony fit to signify the blessing which it pretendeth to procure For it is manifest that Baptisme also and the Eucharist are ceremonies signifying visibly that invisible grace wherewith God sanctifieth Christians But there will be therefore no consequence that Baptisme and the Eucharist should
by Hereticks nor Schismaticks So must he attribute the effect of the rest to the foundation of the Church the Prayers whereof God by founding it hath promised to hear being made according to that Christianity which the foundation thereof supposeth Let us consider whether extreme Unction may be or must be counted a Sacrament upon these termes or not for if that what question will remaine of the rest I conceive I have observed that which is very pertinent to the consideration of all the rest in showing that they are the solemnities wherewith some acts of that publick authority is exercised which the Church hath in respect of the members of it Onely in the Unction of the sick I have not found any act of authority distinct from that power of the Keyes whereby in extremity all are admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in hope of Gods mercy acknowledging the debt of that Penance remaining if they survive which must qualify them for it in the the judgement of the Church And the promise of forgiveness of sins annexed to it I have found to suppose that contrition which undertaketh the same in case a man survive Which notwithstanding whosoever acknowledges the Church cannot think the prayers of the Church needlesse in such an exigent But as for the ceremony of anointing with oyle I have found it in the premises to concern the recovery of bodily health by the practice of all ages that are found to have used it Though not pretending miraculous graces of curing diseases extant in the primitive times but onely that confidence which Gods generall promise to the Church groundeth of hearing the prayers thereof even for temporall blessings so farre as the exception to it which Christianity maketh shall allow It was thought fit to lay aside this ceremony at the Reformation least the Church should seem to pretend a promise the effect whereof being temporall and visible could not be made to appear Which might seem a disparagement to our common Christianity But there have not wanted Doctors of the Reformation Bucer by name that have acknowledged nor will any man of a peaceable judgement make question that the ceremony might have been retained at the visitation of the sick Which he that would have the Church lay aside because the Church of Rome useth this ceremony at it he would have the Church be no Church because the Church of Rome is one For as the office of the Church can never be more necessary then in that extremity to procure that disposition qualifying for pardon which then it is not too late to procure So can no ceremony be filter then annointing with oil to signify that health of body which the Church chearfully prayeth for on behalf of them whom she promiseth remission of sinne That health of minde which the present agony so peremptorily requireth Supposing then the constitution of the Church such that the ministery thereof must needs be thought sufficient meanes to procure salvation for the members of it And then supposing the Church so constituted injoyne prayer to be made for the sicke to whose reconcilement the keyes thereof are applied anointing them with oyl to signify that health of body and mind which is prayed for So farre am I from dividing the Church in that regard that I acknowledge it may be very well counted one of the Sacraments of the Church in that case To wit as a ceremony appointed by the Church signifying that health which the Church rightly using the Power which it is trusted with appointeth to be prayed for in that case To prove Marriage to be a Sacrament it is well known how the text of S. Paul is alledged Ephes V. 32. Sacramentum hoc magnum est This is a great mystery but I mean concerning Christ and the Church But Saint Paul saith not that the mariage of Christians is a sacrament but that the mariage of Adam and Eve was a great mystery As indeed it was if the Apostle say true that it figured the marriage of our Lord Christ with his Church and that therefore the woman was taken out of the man as Christians are the bimbs of Christ and therefore wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church to Christ True it is that seing mariage in Paradise was made an inseparable conjunction of one with one with an intent that it should figure the inseparable conjunction between our L. Christ and the congregation of them whom he foreseeth that they shall persevere in that regard the marriage of Christians also being by our Lord reformed to the first institution of Paradise cannot chuse but signify the same though now in being Whereas the marriage of Adam was a mystery for signifying the same to be But supposing all this and not supposing an Order in the Church for the blessing of marriage as a solemnity prescribed by the Church I know not whether there could be cause to reckon marriage among the Sacraments of the Church all the rest which pretend to tha quality being offices of the Church to be performed with some solemnity Whereas supposing something peculiar to the marriage of Christians in regard whereof it is to be celebrated with the solemne Blessing of the Church there is no cause why under the equivocation premised it may not be counted among the Sacraments of the Church For is there any question to be made that Christians submitting themselves to marry according to the Law of Christ with an intent not onely to keep faith to one another according to that which is between Christ and his Church but to breed children for the Church And so submitting unto the Church and those limits wherewith the Church boundeth the exercise of Gods Law for maintaining of unity in the Church may promise themselves the effect of that Blessing which the Church joynes them with Supposing them qualified for the common blessings of Christians and the Church formed by God with a promise of his blessings What doubt can be made that the Blessing shall have effect which the Church joynes them with But what assurance can be had of the effect of that Blessing without it supposing the Church and supposing the blessing of marriage appointed by the Church I have showed the ground whereupon the allowance of mrriage among Christians is necessarily part of the interest of the Church I have showed that in Ordination in Confirmation in Penance as well as in Baptisme and in the Eucharist the Church exerciseth some power and authority which she is trusted with by God The blessing of mariage what is it but the marke of that authority in allowing the mariages of Christians which the Church thereby exerciseth If Ignatius and Tertullian require the consent of the Church to the mariages of Christians it must needes be inferred from thence that this consent was declared by the blessing of the Church as the Power of ordaining and the Power of absolving is exercised with blessing that is praying for
held to be God namely the image â—t is to be granted that whosoever it was that writ the book against Imageâ— under the name of Charles the great did understand the council to injoine the worship of God to be giveâ— the image of our Lord For of any othâ—r image of God there was no question in that Councile But it is not to be denied that it was a meere mistake and that the Councile acknowledging that submission of the heart which the excellence of God onely challenges proper to the Holy Tâ—inity maintaines a signification of that esteeme to be paid to the Image of our Lord. For the words of the Councile I refer you to Estius in III. Sentent distinct IX ss II. and III. where you shall see besides the honour due to God alone and the honour due to his Saints the Council injoines a kind of honour for the images of either respectively signifying the esteeme we have for God and of his Saints I know there is much noise of Latria to signifie the honour due to God alone and Dulia that which belongs to his Saintâ— And I am satisfied that there is no ground for the difference either in the originall reason or use of the words But as nothing hinders them to be taken as words of art use to be taken to signifie peculiar conceptions in Christianity so if dulia be understood as S. Austine understandes it câ—ntra Faustum XX. 21. for that love and communion which we imbrace the saints that are alâ—ve with there is no fear of Idolatry in honouring the Saints departed with dulia But the honour we give the images is not the honour we give the principal but onely by the equivocating of terms according to the decree of the Council Therefore that honour of images which the decree maintaineth is no Idolatry But he that saies it is no idolatry which they injoine does not therefore justifie or commend them for injoyningit It were a pittifull commendation for the Church that it is not Idolatry which the decree thereof injoynes It is therefore no evidence that the decree obliges because it injoines no idolatry You saw how neere the honour of Saints in the prayers which come from this decree came to Idolatry And though those that counted Images idoles in the East stood for the honour of the Saints yet it is certaine and visible that the authors of the decree did intend to advance the honour of the Saints thereby and effect it What is that effect That the Saints are prayed to by Christians in such forme and with such termes as doe not distinguish whether they hold them Gods or creatures Grant they agree with their profession and you must construe them to the due difference suppose they understand not the common profession or the consequence of it who warants them no Idolaters It is alleged out of S. Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. XVIII that the honour of the Image passeth to the principall He speaketh of the honour of the Sonne that it is the honour of the Father whose image the Son is And so it is indeed The honour of the Father and of the Son is both one and the same To say that the image of our Lord is to be honoured as he is is perfect idolatry But he who believes the Son to be of the fathers substance and his picture to be his picture cannot say so if he be in his wits Either he commits Idolatry or he contradicts himselfe That may and must be said It is easy to see how many Divines of the Church of Rome make images honourable with the honour of their principall The images of our Lord by consequence with latria the honour proper to God When this is said it must be cured by distinguishing though not properly yet improperly though not by it self yet accidentally reducible to that honour which the principall is worshipped with that is the image of Christ as God Yet you are not to use these termes to the people least they prove Idolaters or have cause to think their teachers such So Cardinall Bellarmine de Imaginibus II. 23 24 25. There is a cure for Idolatry in the distinction supposing him to contradict himself For what greater contradiction then that the honour that may be reduced to the honour of God should be the honour of God seeing that it is not the honour of God which is not proper to God as consisting in the esteeme of him above all things So for the adoration of the Crosse the signe of the Crosse which I spoke of before is onely a ceremony which being from the beginning frequented by Christians upon all occasions the Church had reason to make use of in the solemnizing of the greatest actions of Gods publike service particularly those whereby the authority of the Church is convayed and exercised The Crosse whereon our Lord Christ was crucified is a relique though not parte of his body yet for coming so nere to his body deserving to be honoured Other Crosses are the images of that The Schoole Doctors question what honour it is which the true Crosse of Christ demands And the head of them Thomas Aquinaâ— answers the honour proper to God by the name of latria Either as representing the figure of Christ crucified or as washed with his blood If the Crosse of Christ must be worshipped with the honour proper to God because washed with our Saviours bloud then must it have received divine vertue from his bloud Is not this construction reasonable And what made the Idoles of the Hethen idoles but an opinion of divine vertue residing in them by being set up for the exercise of their religion that supposed many Gods I grant the construction is necessary though not reasonable For I find it construed otherwise To make a difference between the true Crosse of Christ which is honoured for a relique and other Crosses which are honoured as the pictures of it and signes putting us in mind of Christ on the Crosse So the words of Thomas Aquinas may be reasonably taken to teach Idolatry If they be not necessarily so to be taken yet as he teacheth to honour it with Latria either he teacheth Idolatry or contradicteth himself for the same reason as in Images What the effect of these excessive positions hath been is easie to see They clothe their images they paint them they guild them the finest they may They think themselves holy for touching kissing and caressing them as children do their babies They touch their bodies with them and think themselves hallowed by the meanes They put a cotton on the end of a stick and touch first the images then the eyes the lips and the noses of them that come and that in their surplisses Thus are they induced to pray directly to the Saints for their carnall concupiscences as did the heathen idolaters to vow to give themselves to them to put themselves under their protection and defence to set them up in their
of the Church or the customes thereof more anciently in being then expressely inacted by any common decree of it Whereupon it followes by vertue of the premises that the state of Monasticall life is of its owne nature subordinate to the state of the Clargy tending as a meanes by private exercise to fit men to the discharge of themselves towards the world which the Clergy obligeth every man to converse with in that manner which Monasticall life professeth Of this there is sufficient evidence by those many examples that are extant in the records of the ancient Church of such as have been taken from Monasticall life to be promoted to the service of the Church Which course expressing no dispensation in the profession of Monasticall life formerly made necessary intimateth a reasonable ground for thâ—s constâ—uction That the Church allowing men to dispose of themselves to the exercise of monasticall life intended not to part with that interest which it hath in every particular Christian to oblige those to the service thereof by promoting them to Holy Orders whomsoever she findeth fittest for it And that the allowance of Monasticall life is in order to this intent and purpose A thing still more visible by all those institutions and foundations whereby Monastâ—ties have been made and accounted seminaries of the Church and the Clergy of it This being said you see how great aquestion remaines whether the Clergy be bound to the continence of single life or not to wit Bishops Priests Deacons For the Deacons office hath indeed beene divided into severall orders of inferior Clergy sub deacons readers dore keepers waiters and that for the necessity of the Church in that estate which was before Constantine So that the consâ—uâ—ion of them cannot be imputed to any corruption that might follow upon the temporall prosperity of the Church But of these inferior Orders there is no question For as concerning Deacons you have a Canon of the Council at Aricyra the Canons whereof were afterwards part of the Canons of the whole Church allowing them not to marry being Deacons but to be made Deacons being marryed And an other of the councill of Elvira in Spaine ancienter then the Councill of Nicaea injoyning upon Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Sub-deacones to abstaire from their wives under paine of their Clergy At the council of Nicaea it was in debate to doe the same and the Council was moved by Paphnutius a Bishop of great merit in Egypt himselfe alwaies a single man to rest in the rule presently in force which was preferring those who being single should loose their ministries if they maried to all decrees of the Clergey especially Priests and Bishops to make use never the lesse of those who were married or professed an intent of marryage when there was ground by the rest of their qualities of confidence in them for the discharge of their office For this as it agrees with the Canon of Ancyra and the forme of it so it assures us that the Council of Elvira could not have taken in hand to impose so great a burthen had not the precedent practice of the Church by unwritten custome before the Canon disposed the Church to receive it And therefore I will in this point which hath beene the subject of many volumes and in which it would be endlesse to examine the Canons the precedents the authorities that concerne it discharge my selfe chiefly upon Epiphanius whose words in the LIX Haeresy of the Novatians are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moreover neither doth the Church admit him that is the husband of one wife yet living and getting Children Deacon or Priest or Bishop or sub deacon Vnlesse he abstain from that one or is become a Widower Especially where the Canons of the Church are exact But you will by all meanes say to me that in some places Priests Deacons and Sub-deacons doe still get children That is not by the Canon but by the slack disposition of mens minds sometimes and for plenties sake when men fit to minister are not found In the conclusion of his worke also he reckons this for one of the Lawes of the whole Church without mentioning this exception Now if you goe to seeke for any rule in writing to bind the whole Church to this before Epiphanius his time you will finde none But a custome you will finde in force which is more then all the Law of the world in writing whereby it will appeare that the indeavour of the Church was to be served with single men but when the best qualified were not such to balke the rule for the appearance of that common good in balkeing it for which the rule it selfe was made And so the resolution of this pointe attesteth first the Corporation of the Church when for the good of the body it presrcibes it selfe rules what sort of persons to make use of for the exercise of those offices in the communion whereof the surety of it standeth Then it eminently attests the superiority of the Bip and his Clergy in every of those Churches whereof the whole consisteth Vnlesse men be so wilfully senselesse as to attribute the wisdome which such dispensations required to the rashnesse of anymultitude Last of all â—it attests the regular pre-eminence of the Church of Rome over the rest of the Westerne Churches by the interposition whereof visible in those times when it had no help from the secular power to make it irregular and infinite so great a burthen became so far owned First then I must free the Church from the heavy charge of bringing in the doctrine of deviles foretold by S. Paul in prohibiting mariage 1 Tim. IV. 1 3. which I shall doe the more slightly because I have had oportunity else where to show that he speakes of the Heresies on foot in the times of the Apostles which made maryage the ordinance of those powers which made the world which their doctrine distinguished from the true soveraine God For what hath the rule of the Church to doe with any such supposition as this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Epipha prosecutes his purpose For the Church alwaies aiming at the most fitting as well ordered by the H. Gh decreed to indeavour that the service be performed without distraction from God and spirituall necessities effected with all the most charitable conscience I meane that it is fit in regard of suddaine ministries and necessities that the Priests the Deacons the Bishops wait upon God For if the Holy Apostle command those of the Laity saying that they may attend upon Prayer for a time 1. Cor. VII 5. How much more commandeth he the Priest the same Now I meane with out distraction that he may waite upon the Priest-hood which is performed in spirituall necessities according to God Here you have no mention for incapacity of the Priest hood or any service which it injoyneth by maryage or any thing to disparage the estate in the sense of
Gods Church But here you have S. Jeromes argument if S. Paul require the use of wedlock to be foâ—borne for extraordinary devotions then hath the Church reason to indeavour that they whose ordinary devotions ought to be extraordinary in comparison of the people be such as forbeare it alwaies Especially in regard of those offices of the Church the occasions whereof may fall out at any time and sudaine Truely were there nothing to doe but to preach twice a week there could no such fall out Nor can I show you better evidence then this that that order is not the order of Gods Church Againe Epiphanius in the premises chargeth the Novatians with ignorance in not permitting the Laity to marry second wives which their Fathers the Montanists are evidently chargeable with Not considering that the Clergy were intended for the creame of Christians not in knowledg or language but in Christianity Therefore he that had been baptized in danger of death not afore and he that had done publike penance was not admitted No more was he that had marryed a second wife which when all is said is S. Pauls meaning 1. Tim. III. 2. For he that had more wives then one was no Christian and therefore in no capacity for the Clergy who was not to communicate with the Church And they who think S. Chrysostome in Epist ad Titum hom II. expounds him of those who being parted by divorce should mary a second wife must say whether afore baptisme or after For that alters the case For though it was a doubt in S. Jeromes time whether he that had marryed one afore baptisme another after were under this incapacity or not But after baptisme it is not to be thought that the Church had so little respect of our Lords Lawes as to admit adulterers though not as to the Roman Lawes yet as to Gods Athenagoras calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fashionable adultery in regard to the world For as to the Church adultery it was alwaies but never fashionable Wherefore S. Chrysostomes argument is to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should he governe well the Church that kept no good will for her that was gon For a man is not chargeble for not keeping affection for her whom he puts away when she is gon but well and good for her that is dead And if he say that S. Paul hereby pun shes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incontinent and that the case hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many blames it is plain that civill people have alwaies had them in esteeme above others that have staid at their first marryage And therefore though no civill Law forbid it as S. Chrysostome observeth nor Christianity yet is it no marvell if the lawes of the Church which the Apostles hereby inacted set a marke upon it which civility disesteemeth See Grotius his annotations on the place and Luke II. 36. If we consider that the widowes which the Church maintayned were to be such 1. Tim. V. 9. then that it hath alwaies been an incapacity by the Canons of the Church we shall not need seek any other beginning for it S. Chrysostome in 1 ad Tim. Hom X though the copy be not cleare saies plaine enough that the Apostles exacted no more then this signifying what the Canons at that time did require For I doe not pretend that the Apostles themselves either injoyned themselves single life or gave over theire wives when they went about their office Though nothing can appeares to the contrary the many examples of Bishops and Priests that gave over the use of wedlock from the time of their ministry with the consent of their wives giving appearance that they thought the Apostles had done the same It is enough that their instructions were a ground for the Church to proceed in it and a step towards it That course which the Councill of Nicaea confirmed by resting content with it seemeth agreeable both with justice and that holinesse to which the Church pretendeth But before I come to that I must not forget the second reason moving the Church to indeavour it to wit the dispensing of the Church goods according to the intent for which they are dedicated to God in being estated upon it For by the ground hereof setled in the first book it evidently appeareth that the Clergy are not proprietaries in the fruits of them But have onely full right to maintaine themselves upon them with that moderation and abstinence in their private expence which continuall attendance upon Gods service involved in their profession necessarily inferteth Otherwise it is manifest that they are trusted by Christian people with the dispensing of their oblations and consecrations to the maintenance of the poore part of the originall consideration upon which they were estated upon the Church Nor can any civill Law providing contribution of the people for the necessary subsistence of the poore of every parish ever extinguish this obligation so long as the Church is a Church and stands upon its owne title That hospitality to which Church goods are and alwaies have been accounted liable consisting not in secular intertainment which bringeth on ambition of worldly expence and costly superfluities But in providing for the poore and strangers and distressed whether at home or abrode the intent whereof redounds to the account of him that provideth the meanes and therefore the execution thereof to his account that dispenseth the same For if the intent of the Church and all the Lawes of it demonstrate that the Clergy are to be the first fruits of Christianity then doth the renouncing of the world which all Christians by their Baptisme professe in the first place take hold of them But that the injoying of superfluities in the world is utterly inconsistent with Therefore the profession of the Clergy necessarily limiteth their right in Church goods to a spare and moderate maintenance the trust which is upon them by intent of pious consecrations expressed in the originall custome and practice of the Church taking place in point of conscience where their owne necessities cease Now it is indeed become evident by corruption prevailing in the Church that single men becoming trusted with Church goods can abuse them so well to their owne riot or to the inriching of their relations that maried men could have don no more But that never came to passe til chiefly by the coming of the world into the Church those maners and customes in which the eminency of the clergy above the people did and ought to consist suffered shipwrack in the multitude of offenders after they had beene maintained a great while by the eminent abstinence of Prelates and inferiour Clergy able for authority and meanes to have produced bad examples Whether common reason is tyed to judge it more probable that the moderation and abstinence which the Clergy professeth should prevaile and take effect they living single or maried that I suppose onely comes in consideration when the dispute
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
make good that protection which they undertook by the loyalty of them that injoyed it things must by consequence continue in this estate But when the removing of the Germane power from the line of Charles the great had done the operation of rendring them who succeeded obnoxious at home to them by whose faction they obtained it there was no great likelyhood that the obedience of strangers and Italians accustomed to changing of masters should continue This was the time that Gregory VII Pope and his successors took when the power of the Emperours in disposing the Churches of Germany by the right of investiture whatsoever in point of right it signified must needs render their interest envious as well at home as at Rome whatsoever occasions of discontent besides an Elective Crowne might produce For Charles the great as our William of Malmsbury noteth had heaped wealth and power upon the Churches by which he planted Christianity in Germany as placing a greater confidence of Loyalty in them then in any estate of his subjects besides And the example of that credit which the usurpation of Pepin had received by the allowance of the Pope seemed to justify any insurrection either of Italians or Germanes to which the Pope was a party For as to the issue of those Warres though the Pope got no more then reducing the adverse party to composition because he could not pretend any dominion for his Church by conquering yet must it needs turn to the advantage of his authority that had the greatest stroke in moving that warre which others made This is the story the morall whereof became the theme for those that undertook to preach the Popes temporall power over Soveraignties For successe to them that consult not with their Christianity is a plausible argument of right But the Interest of the Pope in Soveraignties having swelled so farre beyond the whole capacity of the Church the bad consequence of necessity followes that his originall power in the Church must needs swell so farre beyond the bounds as of regular to become infinite I will not now contend that the subjects of the Empire in Italy fell away from it because they thought themselves free of their allegiance by the excommunicating of the Emperor Leo Isaurus There is reason enough to think that the See of Rome cried up the worship of images contrary to the moderation of Saint Gregory some hundred years afore out of hope to advance their own power by impairing the rights of their Soveraigne But I charge no more then they pretend And there is appearance for another plea which is want of protection from the Empire at such time as recourse was had to the protection of the French But the vexation of the Germane Emperours manifestly pretended the temporall effect of the Popes excommunication in dissolving the bond of allegiance wherein the temporal power of the Pope consisteth The effect of which being such as it was it is the lesse marvaile that the rest of the Soveraignities of Christendome have entered into capitulations with the Pope such as the Concordates which I spoke of afore with France whereby to secure the government of their people in peace on that side they make the Popes pretense of power without bounds in Ecclesiasticall matters of law to their respective Dominions and Territories It is strange to him that considers without prejudice how they who imagine the Pope to be Antichrist could make their pretense popular that Episcopacy is the support of Antichrist For his unlimitted power in Church maters is but the regular power of all Churches united in one It is plainly made up for the See of Rome of feathers plucked from every Church So that if Episcopacy be the support of Antichrist then do their rights maintaine his usurpation by whom they are destroyed Did the Soveraignities of Christendome maintaine the Churches of their respective dominions in that right which the reguâ—ar constitution of the Church settleth upon them and that is it which the protection of the Church signifyeth it would soon appeare that he is Antichrist if Antichrist he be to their prejudice and disadvantage The See of Rome having got a decree at the Councile of Trent scornes any termes but absolute submission to it But the end of such an intestine warre by conquest as it would be extreamly mischievous bearing all down before the pretense of infallibility which must then prevaile So findes hinderances answerable to the advantages which the disunion of the adverse party ministreth The animosities of Potentates that adhere to it have made it visible that their interest consists in hindering the reunion of the Reformation to the Church of Rome And the pretense of dissolving allegiance by the sentence of excommunication is become no way considerable by the subsistence of them who regard it not Nor is the advantage which the favour thereof lends the armes of those Princes who tye themselves the most strictly to the interests of it any more considerable Whether or no it be time for them to bethink themselves that it were better for them to injoy the unquestionable title of a true Church and of the chief Church of Christendome which it is absolutely necessary for all Churches to hold communion with the common Christianity being secured then catching at the disposing of all mens Christianity without rendring any account to the Church which how dangerous for their own salvation is it to hang the unity of the Church meerly upon the interest of the World which how prejudiciall is it to the salvation of Gods people not upon the interest of Christianity themselves must judge This I am sure If Christian Powers maintaine their due right and title of Protectors of Gods Church it is the regular constitution thereof which they must maintaine The exemption of Monasticall Orders and Universities from the jurisdiction of their Ordinaries under whom they stand and the Synods to which they resort the reservation of cases dispensations in Canons provisions of Churches and the rest of those chanels by which power as well as wealth is drained from all Churches to Rome must needs be stopped up at least for the greatest part if Christian Soveraigns did protect the Church of their dominions in the right of ending causes that concern not the whole Church at home This were such a ground of confidence between Soveraignes and the Clergy of their dominions that it would be very hard to imagine any interest considerable to ingage against that interest by the prejudicing whereof neither of them could expect any advantage And this confidence the meanes to restore and to maintain that intercourse and correspondence between the Churches of severall Soveraignties by which when all Churches at least as many as easily outweighed the rest were under the Romane Empire the Unity of the Church was maintained without that recourse to temporall power which made it infinite Nor would there remaine any just ground of jealousie between the Pope and the
you say something more to limit the ground upon which they may be no lesse What limitation I would adde is plain by the premises The preaching of that Word and that ministring of the Sacraments which the Tradition of the whole Church confineth the sense of the Scriptures to intend is the onely mark of the Church that can be visible For I suppose preaching twice a Sunday is not if a man be left free to preach what he will onely professing to beleeve the Bible which what Heresy disowneth and to make what he thinks good of it And yet how is the generality of people provided for otherwise unlesse it be because they have preachers that are counted godly men by those whom what warrants to be godly men themselves In the mean time is it not evident that Preachers and people are overspread with a damnable heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England called Etonists and Grindeltons according to severall Countries These believe so to be saved by the free Grace of God by which our Lord died for the Elect that by the revelation thereof which is justifying Faith all their sinnes past present and to come are remitted So that to repent of sinne or to contend against it is the renouncing of Gods free Grace and saving Faith How much might be alledged to show how all is now overspread with it The Book called Animadversions upon a Petition out of Wales shall serve to speak the sense of them who call themselves the godly party as speaking to them in Body Thus it speaks pag. 36. Look through your vail of duties profession and ordinances and try your heart with what spirit of love obedience and truth you are in your work And whether will you stand to this judgement Or rather that God should judge you according to grace to the name and nature of Christ written upon you and in you Sure the great Judge will thus judge us at last by his great judgement or last judgement Not by the outward conversation nor inward intention but finally by his eternall Election according to the Book of Life This just afore he calleth the seed of Christ and his righteousnesse in a Christian And pag. 38. When we are inraged we let fly at mens principles being not satisfied to rebuke mens actions opinions and workes but would be avenged of their Principles too As if we would kill them at the very hart pull them up by the Rootes and leave them in an uncurable condition rotten in their Principles But Principles ly deeper then the heart and are indeed Christ who is the Principle and beginning of all things who though heart fail and flesh faile yet he abides the root of all Shall he pretend to be a Christian that professes this Shall any pretend to be a Church that spue it not out Let heaven and earth judge whether poor soules are otherwise to be secured of the Word then by two sermons a Sunday when the sense of the Godly is claimed to consist in a position so peremptorily destructive to salvation as this It will be said perhaps that now the Ministers of the Congregations have subscribed the confession of the Assembly But alas the covering is too short When a Bishop in the Catholick Church subscribed a Councile there was just presumption that no man under his authority could be seduced from the Faith subscribed Because no man communicated with the Catholick Church but by communicating with him that had subscribed it Who shall warrant that the godly who have this sense not liable to any authority in the Church shall stand to the subscriptions of those Ministers or to the authority of the Assembly pretended by the Presbyteries If they would declare themselves tied so to do who shall warrant that there is not a salvo for it in the Confession which they subscribe If there were not why should any difficulty be made to spue out that position which is the seed of it That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is of the number of the Elect for whom Christ died excluding others Why that which is the fruit of it That they who transgresse the Covenant of Baptisme come not under the state of sin and damnation come not from under the state of Grace Why but because a back-door must be left for them that draw the true conclusion from their own premises reserving themselves the liberty to deny the conclusion admitting the premises It is not then a confession of faith that will make the Word that is preached a mark of the Church without some mark visible to common sense warranting that confession of Faith As for the Sacraments no Church no Sacraments If they suppose that ground upon which that intent to which the whole Church hath used them there is no further cause of division in the Church for that secures the rule of Faith If not they are no Sacraments but by equivocation of words they are sacriledges in profaning Gods Ordinances The Sacrament of Baptisme because the necessary meanes of salvation is admitted for good when ministred by those who are not of the Church but alwaies void of the effect of grace To which it reviveth so soone as the true Faith is professed in the unity of the Church If a Sacrament be a visible signe of invisible grace that baptisme is no baptisme which signifieth the grace it should effect but indeed effecteth not Such is that Baptisme which is used to seale a Covenant of Grace without the condition of Christianity a Covenant that is not the Covenant of two parties but the promise of one Whence comes the humor of rebaptizing but to be discharged of that Christianity which the baptisme of the Church of England exacteth Why do they refuse Baptisme in New England to all that refuse to enter into the Covenant of Congregations How comes it more necessary to salvation to be of a Congregation then to be Baptized and made a Christian Is it not because it is thought that salvation is to be had without that profession of Christianity which the Sacrament of Baptisme sealeth That it is not to be had without renouncing it Upon these termes those that are denied Baptisme by the Congregations because they are not of the Congregations are denied salvation as much as in them lies but not indeed and in truth For the necessity of baptisme supposing a profession of the Catholicke Church they perish not by refusing it who will not have it by renouncing the Catholicke Church that is by covenanting themselves into Congregations They that are so affected must know that they have authority of themselves to baptize to effect which no Congregation in New England is able to do If the Sacrament of the Eucharist seale that Covenant of Grace which conditioneth not for Christianity it is no sacrament but by equivocation of words Where that conditionall is doubtfull or voide there is no security
for poor soules that they receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist They who depart from the Church that they may minister the Sacraments on such grounds and to such effects as the Church allowes not incurre the nullities and sacriledges which departing from the Church inferreth But if beside the Faith of the Church the authority of the Church be supposed to the effect of the Sacraments how shall the Sacraments be Sacraments though ministred upon profession of the true Faith where no authority of the Church can be pretended for the ministring of them Or where it can onely be pretended but is indeed usurped and void Posterity will never forget that there are in a Land inhabited by Christians called England Country Parishes in which the Sacraments have not been ministred for so many years as the order of the Church of England hath been superseded by the late warre If the Word and Sacraments be the marks of the Church what pretense for a Church where there is indeed a pretense of the Word though no presumption that it is Gods but of Sacraments not so much as a pretense What hath the rest of England deserved of the Congregations or of the Presbyteries that they should be left destitute of the meanes of salvation because they cannot see reason to be of Congregations or Presbyteries Lay men preach and Lay men go to Church to hear them preach because they cannot preach themselves at home to their families The horror of profaning the Sacraments of the Church by Sacriledge is yet alive to make them tremble still at usurping to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist But will those Lay men that preach answer for the Lay mens soules to whom they preach that they have sufficient means of salvation by hearing them preach being of no Church that might answer that it is Gods Word which they preach ministring no Sacraments for a mark of the Church Is it possible a Christian should hold himself able to preach who holds not himself able to baptize Or is it the appetite of devouring consecrated goods that insnares men to preach who when it comes to baptizing had rather let innocent soules perish then own the authority of the Church which inables every Christian to baptize in case of necessity because they know they usurp the office of preaching without authority from the Church It is I that have said that a Lay man may be authorized to preach by the Church And I believe still I said true in it But shall I therefore answer for him that preacheth without authority from the Church Should he preach by authority from the Church there were presumption for his hearers that it is the Word of God which the Church authorizeth When he preacheth without authority from the Church shall he not answer for the soules whom he warrants salvation by his preaching without Church or Word or Sacraments But these are not the Godly Those that know themselves such are thereby authorized to retire themselves into Congregations that they may injoy the purity of the Ordinances It is then mens Godlinesse that inables them to forsake the Church and betake themselves into Congregations And indeed I know an Oxford Doctor who to prove himselfe no Schismaticke for it hath alledged that he can be no Schismatick because he knowes himself to be Godly and to have Gods Spirit I deny not that he hath alledged other reasons why he is no Schismaticke the ground whereof I considered afore But what Quaker could not have alledged the Spirit of God as well as he And did not he who pretends himself Christ alledge reasons for it as well as pretend the Spirit A nice mistake it is to imagine that a Christian is to accept the Scriptures for the Word of God because the Spirit of God assures him that so they are For of a truth untill the Spirit of God move him to be a Christian he accepteth them not for such When it doth he is moved so to accept them by the Spirit of God as by the effective cause But for reasons which though contained in the Scriptures yet were they not visibly true before a man can accept the Scriptures for the Word of God he could never so accept them by Gods Spirit Unlesse we can imagine the virtue of Gods Spirit not to depend upon the preaching of his Gospel which I suppose onely Enthusiasts do imagine Nor doth the Spirit of God distinguish to any Christian the Apochrypha from Canonicall Scripture but by such meanes as may make the difference visible No more doth it assure him that he is a good Christian but upon the knowledge of such resolutions and actions wherein Christianity consisteth If it be requisite to make a man no Schismatick that it be not his own fault that he is not of the Catholicke Church If he perswade himselfe upon unsufficient reasons that there is no such thing by Gods Law as the visible body of a Catholick Church Just it is with God to leave such a one to thinke it Gods Spirit that assures him a godly man being a Schismatick It is not therefore supposition of invisible godlinesse that can priviledge men to withdraw themselves from the Church into Congregations supposing such a thing as a Catholicke Church The purity being invisible but the barre to it separation from Gods Church visible the Ordinances for which they separate will remaine their own Ordinances not Gods The Presbyterians sometimes pleade their Ordination in the Church of England for the authority by which they ordaine others against the Church of England to doe that which they received authority from the Church of England to doe provided that according to the order of it A thing so ridiculously senselesse that common reason refuseth it Can any State any society doe an act bâ— virtue whereof there shall be right and authority to destroy it Can the Ordination of the Church of England proceeding upon supposition of a solemne promise before God and his Church to execute the ministery a man receiveth according to the Order of it inable him to doe that which he was never ordained to doe Shall he by failing of his promise by the act of that power which supposed his promise receive authority to destroy it Then let a man obtaine the kingdome of heaven by transgressing that Christianity by the undertaking whereof he obtained right to it They are therefore meere Congregations voluntarily constituted by the will of those all whose acts even in the sphere of their ministery once received are become voide by theire failing of that promise in consideration whereof they were promoted to it Voide I say not of the crime of Sacrilege towards God which the usurpation of Core constituteth but of the effect of Grace towardes his people For the like voluntary combining of them into Presbyteries and Synodes createth but the same equivocation of wordes when they are called Churches to signify that which is visible by their usurpation in point of fact
therefore how shall it appeare to signify here any more then him that pretends to be the Christ For it is evident that Saint John both there and 1 John IV. 3. speakes of his own time As for the Revelation neither is it any where said that it prophesieth any thing of Antichrist nor will it be proved that it saith any thing of the Pope Much of it being a Prophesie hath been expounded to all appearance of something like the Pope though with violence enough All of it without Prophesying what shall come to passe could never be expounded to that purpose and it is not strange that so great a foundation should be laid upon the event of an obscure Scripture such as all Prophesies are to be conjectured by that which we think we see come to passe For I referre to judgement how much more appearance there is that it intendeth the vengeance of God upon the Pagan Empire of Rome for persecuting Christianity both in the Text and composure of the prophesie and in the pretense of tendring and addressing it Nor is there any thing more effectuall to prove the same then the Idolatries which it specifies that the Christians chused rather to lay down their lives then commit True it is no man can warrant that by praying to Saints for the same things that we pray to God for and by the worship of Images Idolatry may not come in at the back door to the Church of Rome which Christianity shuts out at the great Gate But if it do the difference will be visible between that and the Idolatry of Pagans that professe variety of imaginary deities by those circumstances which in the Apocalypse expresly describe the Idolatries of the Heathen Empire of Rome And therefore I am forced utterly to discharge the Church of Rome of this imputation and to resolve that the Pope can no more be Antichrist then he that holds by professing our Lord to be the Christ and to honour him for God as the Christ is honoured by Christians can himself pretend to be the Christ Nay though I sincerely blame the imposing of new articles upon the faith of Christians and that of positions which I maintaine not to be true yet I must and do freely professe that I find no positinecessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvtion injoyned to be believed by it And therefore must I necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have alwaies known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible body by the succession of Pastors and Lawes the present customes in force being visibly the corruption of those which the Church had from the beginning that first was founded by the Apostles For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the ignorance and carnall affections of particulars not by command of the Church or the Lawes of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the comunion thereof are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the profession of all that truth which it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of faith or maners Very much darkned indeed by inhansing of positions either of a doubtful sense or absolutely false to the ranck and degree of matters of Faith But much more overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of rubbish opinions traditions customes and ceremonies allowed indeed but no way injoyned which make that noise in the publick profession and create so much businesse in the practice of Religion among them that it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discerne the pearl the seed and the leaven of the Gospel buried in the earth and the dough of popular doctrines and observations so as to imbrace it with that affection of faith and love which the price of it requires But if it be true as I said afore that no man is obliged to commit those Idolatries that are possible to be committed in that communion it will not be impossible for a discerning Christian to passe through that multitude of doctrines and observations the businesse whereof being meerly circumstantiall to Christianity allows not that zeale and affection to be exercised upon the principall as is spent upon the accessory without superstition and will-worship in placing the service of God in the huske and not in the kernell or promising himself the favour of God upon considerations impertinent to Christianity As for the halfe Sacrament the service in an unknown language the barring the people from the Scrptures and other Lawes manifestly intercepting the meanes of salvatian which God hath allowed his people by the Church It seems very reasonable to say that the fault is not the fault of particular Christians who may and perhaps do many times wish that the matter were otherwise But that the Church being a Society concluding all by the act of those who conclude it there is no cause to imagine that God will impute to the guilt and damnation of those who could not help it that which they are sufferes in and not actors Nay t is much to be feared that the authors themselves of such hard Lawes and those who maintaine them will have a strong plea for themselves at the day of judgement in the unreasonablenesse of their adversaries That it is true all reason required that the meanes of salvation provided by God should be ministred by the Church But finding the pretense of Reformation without other ground than that sense of the Scriptures which every man may imagine and therefore without other bounds and measure then that which imagination for which there are no bounds fixeth They thought it necessary so to carry matters as never to acknowledge that the Church ever erred in any decree or Law that it hath made Least the same error might be thought to take place in the substance of Christianity and the Reformation of the Church to consist in the renouncing of it Which we see come to passe in the Heresy of Socinus And that finding the Unity of the Church which they were trusted with absolurely necessary to the maintenance of the common Christianity whereby salvation is possible to be had though more difficult by denying those helps to salvation which such Lawes intercept They thought themselves tied for the good of the whole not to give way to Laws tending so apparently to the salvation of particular Christians On the other side supposing the premises there remaine no pretense that either Congregations or Presbyteries can be Churches as founded meerly upon humane usurpation which is Schisme not upon divine institution which ordereth all Churches to be fit to constitute one Church which is the whole I need not say that there can be no pretense for any authority visibly convayed to them by those which set them up having it in themselves before I
do not deny that a Christian may attaine to a kind of morall assurance concerning the sincerity of another Christian That he is in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods Spirit Not by any imediate dictate of the holy Ghost to his own heart which is not promised to that purpose Not by any vehemence or suddennesse in the change which made him so inabling him to designe the time and place and meanes by which it came to passe that it may appear the work of Gods Spirit preventing and swallowing up all concurrence of his own free choice For this the change of the end and designe of a mans whole life and the course of it admits not But by force of those arguments and effects of it visible in his conversation which the prudence of a sincere Christian can impute to nothing else But I deny therefore that every true Christian can by the ordinary meanes which God allowes be so assured of the sincerity of other true Christians as thereby to be priviledged to forsake the Church of God in which they live as consisting of others as well as of such to retire themselves into Congregations in which they may serve God in that order which the sincerity of their Christianity assureth them to containe the purity of Gods ordinances For it is manifest that the gift of Gods Spirit requisite to the salvation of all Christians is not promised to this effect as to give them that discretion which inables to value the consequence of such appearances And if it were and if all true Christians could attaine assurance of all Christians of whom the question may be made whether true Christians or not yet hath not God provided that the truest and sincerest Christians retire themselves from communion with those of whom there is no reasonable presumption that they are such but are onely qualified members of the Church by such Lawes as may comprise all the world professing Christianity in the communion of the Church For whatsoever our Lord hath foretold of the Church in the Gospel as of a net that catcheth both good and bad fish as of a floore containing chaffe as well as graine as of a flock containtaining goates as well as sheep as the Arke contained as well unclean beasts as clean necessarily falls upon the visible Church and hath been so accepted by the Church in the case of the Donatists to assure us that the good are not defiled by communion with the bad but obliged to live in it for the exercise of their charity and patience in seeking their amendment For separation upon pretense of satisfaction in the Christianity of some to them who professe not to have it of others as it carrieth in it a necessary appearance of spirituall pride in overseeing all those that concurre not in it So it sets up a banner to the imposture of hypocrites and turns the pretense of sincere Christianity to the justifying of whatsoever it is that a faction so constituted shall take for it Not measuring mens persons by the common Christianity but the common Christianity by that which appeares in the persons of those who without due grounds are supposed true Christians exclusively to others The ground of Congregations being thus voide the constitution of them must needs involve the sacriledge of Schisme in the work and therefore a nullity in the effects of it The Baptisme which they give void of the effect of Grace The Eucharist though consecrated in the forme of the Church which it is not to be doubted that the Novatians Meletians and Donatists held because they are not blamed in it Nor do I doubt that Tertullians Montanists did the like whatsoever abuse might come in among them afterwards by being separated from the Church void of the thing signified by it The prayers of the Church void of that effect which the promise of hearing the prayers thereof importeth whatsoever Offices the Church exerciseth and solemnizeth therewith How much more the constitution of Presbyteries which pretending no such thing as separating the clean from the unclean admits to the communion upon no further pretense of Reformation then answering the Assemblies Catechisme at the demand of Triers constituted by those who contrary to that solemn promise upon supposition whereof they were advanced to Orders in the Church of England usurpe the Power not of their Bishops but of the whole Church in prescribing an order of Ecclesiasticall communion in all Offices of the Church without warrant from it Ordaining those who undertake to warrant the salvation of poor souls as sufficiently provided for thereby by becomming their Ministers to be their Ministers For what pretense can colour this usurpation can obscure the Sacriledge of Schisme in the act the nullity of Gods promises in the effect of it when the difference consists in renoâ—ncing that authority which themselves deny not to have been in possession according to Gods Law pretending further so strongly as they know by virtue of it In disclaiming single heads of Churches and the Clergy that think themselves bound to doe nothing without them though limited both by the Law of the Church and the Law of the Land And in setting up themselves in their stead to manage that authority without the exercise whereof themselves beleeve Christianity cannot subsist by Presbyteries and Synods As if the tyranny of an Oligarchy were not more insufferable then the tyranny of a Monarch Or as if there were not presumption of tyrannizing in those who find themselves free from the bond of these Lawes which fall to the ground with the authority that used them to use the authority they usurpe at their owne discretion which is necessarily the law of all Government that is not limited by lawes which it acknowledgeth For if they alledge that they provide us a confession of Faith which is a strange allegation not alledging either what we wanted before or what we get by it I shall quickly bring them to the triall by demanding of them to spue out that damnable Heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts in turning the Covenant of Baptisme into an absolute promise of life everlasting to them for whome Christ died without conditioning that they beleeve and live like Christians Which they can never doe without contradicting themselves untill they make that Faith which onely justifieth to consist in that loyalty wherewith a man undertakes his Baptisme out of a choice the freedome whereof excludes all predetermination of the will though by that Grace which effectually brings it to passe For this condition making all assurance of salvation the fruit of justifying faith not the act of it as if one could be assured of it by beleeving that he is sure of it obligeth a man to his Christianity for that very reason which first moves all men to be Christians to obtaine the promise which depends upon the performing of it The substance therefore of Christianity consisting in it that baptisme which inacteth it not that Eucharist which
restoreth and establisheth it not is not Baptisme or the Eucharist but by equivocation of words which so long as we are not secured of how should the word and Sacraments which such establishments hold forth be that word those Sacraments which are the marks of Gods Church And are they not revenged of the seven Sacraments in the Church of Rome beyond the measure of moderate defense who to renounce them for Sacraments suppresse the offices which by them are solemnized If they allow the Baptisme of Infants and the Covenant of Baptisme what reason can they have to abolish the solemne profession of it at yeares of discretion with the blessing of the Church for the performance of that to which their profession obliges What account will they give either for not blessing Marriages leaving private Christians to contract without the authority of the Church Or for blessing them without being warranted by the Law of the Church that they are such as Christianity alloweth Are they not most Christianly revenged of extreme Unction by providing no visitation for the sick Of auricular confession by consining the Keyes of the Church to the taking away not of sinne from before God but of scandall from before the Church Ordinations I mervaile not that all are forced to maintaine for how should altar be set up against altar not providing who should minister at it As for the ceremonies and circumstances of Gods service doth not superstitious strictnesse in abolishing them oblige reasonable men to think that they imagine themselves nolesse acceptable to God for neglecting them then the Papists for multiplying them beyond that which the order of them to their end can require That the memories of the Saints should be fit occasions of serving God which the Christianity of the ancient Church made one of the powerfullest means to extinguish Hethenisme is now so abhorred as if we had found out some other Christianity then that which it served to introduce That there should be set times of Fasting is so fâ—rre from the care of Reformers as if there were no such office of Christianity to be exercised by Gods Church In fine what is become of the substance while we talke of ceremony and circumstance Whether Churches were provided revenues founded persons consecrated to the intent that the service of God might daily and hourely sound in them by the Psalmes of his praises by the instruction of his word by the prayers of his people by the continuall celebration of the Eucharist Or that there should be two Sermons a sunday with a prayer at the discretion of him that preaches before and after it Provided nothing be done to signify that humility of mind that reverence of hart that devotion of spirit which the awfull majesty of God is to be served with I report my selfe to the piety of Christendome from sunne to sunne This I see woe worth my sinnes that have made me live to see it an effectuall course is taken that the Church dores be allwayes shut and no serving God there unlesse some body preach This is the summe of that which the premises inable me to allege why I can have no part in the present reformation so called Besides the utter want of all pretense for authority the whole title and pretense upon which and the end to which an equitable mind might question whether ordinary authority though of Gods institution and appointment may be superseded in a case of extrarodinary necessity to restore the true Faith and service of God which all authority of the Church presupposeth for the ground and proposeth for the end of all communion with it is found utterly wanting upon the best inquiry that I have been able to make I am to seek for a point any one point wherein I can justly grant that the change is not for the worse Even that frequency of preaching which was the outside of the businesse even granting it to be by the Rule of true Faith Yet hath the performance of it been so visibly so pittifully defective that he must have a hard heart for our common Christianity who can think that there is wherewith to defend it from the scorn of unbelievers had they nothing to do but to minde it I confesse as afore I allowed the Church of Rome some excuse from the unreasonablenesse of their adversaries So here considering the horrible scandales given by that communion in standing so rigorously upon Lawes so visibly ruinous to the service of God and the advancement of Christianity and the difficulty of finding that meane in which the truth stands between the extreames as our Lord Christ between the theeves saith Turtulliane I doe not proceed to give the salvation of poor soules for lost that are carried away with the pretense of Reformation in the change that is made even to hate and persecute by word or by deed those who cannot allow it For as for the appearance of Heresy though the mistake be dangerous to the soule because if followed it becomes the principle of those actions which whoso doeth shall not inherit the kingdome of God Yet it may be so tenderly held as not to extinguish other points of Christianity which necessarily contradict it For though indeed they do not stand with it yet it is possible that those who through the difficulty of finding the truth have swallowed a mistake may not proceed to act according to the consequence of it but of the rest of that Christianity which they retaine and contradicteth it For as for the authority of the Church the neglect wherof creates that obstinacy in consideration whereof heresy is held heretically the rigorousnesse of the Church of Rome extending it beyond all bounds that our common Christianity can allow and necessitating well disposed Christians to waive it what mervaile if the due bounds becoming in visible to common sense by communion with the Church the misprision of Heresy possesse them with the esteeme of Christianity And the difficulty of avoiding the temptation create an excuse to God for them whose intentions are single As for the crime of schisme justly sticking to them who presuming upon their understanding in the scriptures by the scriptures alone which God hath no where promised to assist without using the helpes which he hath provided by his Church though the sacrilege thereof justly render void of effect the ordinances of God which are ministered by virtue of that usurpation which it involveth yet there being abundance of soules that may live and dye without knowing any better much lesse that can ever be able to judge the best upon true principles why should I not hope that God passing by the nullities which it createth will make good the effect of his Grace to those who with singlenesse of heart seek it in a wrong way when by his Law he cannot be tied to concurre to the meanes But this resolution being the result of the premises demonstrateth how much reason the parties that is those
who create the parties by heading the division have to look about them least they become guilty of the greatest part of soules which in reason must needs perish by the extremities in which it consisteth And the representing of the grounds thereof unto the parties though it may seem an office unnecessary for a private Christian to undertake yet seemeth to me so free from all imputation of offense in discharging of our common Christianity and the obligation of it that I am no lesse willing to undergoe any offense which it may bring upon me then I am to want the advantages which allowing the present Reformation might give me In the mean time I remaine obliged not to repent me of the resolution of my nonage to remaine in the communion of the Church of England There I find an authority visibly derived from the act of the Apostles by meanes of their successors Nor ought it to be of force to question the validity thereof that the Church of Rome and the communion thereof acknowledgeth not the Ordinations and other Acts which are done by virtue of it as done without the consent of the whole Church which it is true did visibly concurre to the authorizing of all acts done by the Clergy as constituted by virtue of those Lawes which all did acknowledge and under the profession of executing the offices of their severall orders according to the same For the issue of that dispute will be triable by the cause of limiting the exercise of them to those termes which the Reformation thereof containeth which if they prove such as the common Christianity expressed in the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of the whole Church renders necessary to be maintained notwithstanding the rest of the Church agree not in them the blame of separation that hath insued thereupon will not be chargeable upon them that retire themselves to them for the salvation of Christian soules but on them who refuse all reasonable compliance in concurring to that which may seem any way tollerable But towards that triall that which hath been said must suffice The substance of that Christianity which all must be saved by when all disputes and decrees and contradictions are at an end is more properly maintained in that simplicity which all that are concerned are capable of by the terms of that Baptisme which it ministreth requiring the profession of them from all that are confirmed at years of discretion then all the disputes on both sides then all decrees on the one side all confessions of faith on the other side have been able to deliver it And I conceive I have some ground to say so great a word having been able by limiting the term of justifying faith in the writings of the Apostles according to the same to resolve upon what termes both sides are to agree if they will not set up the rest of their division upon something which the truth of Christianity justifieth not on either side For by admitting Christianity that is the sincere profession thereof to be the Faith which onely justifyeth in the writings of the Apostles whatsoever is in difference as concerning the Covenant of Grace is resolved without prejudicing either the necessity of Grace to the undertaking the performing the accepting of it for the reward or the necessity of good works in consideration for the same The substance of Chrianity about which there is any difference being thus secured there remaines no question concerning Baptisme and the Eucharist to the effect for which they are instituted being ministred upon this ground and the profession of it with the form which the Catholick Church requireth to the consecration of the Eucharist Nor doth the Church of England either make Sacraments of the rest of the seven or abolish the Offices because the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments Nor wanteth it an order for the daily morning and evening service of God for the celebration of Festivalls and times of Fasting for the observation of ceremonies fit to create that devotion and reverence which they signify to vulgar understandings in the service of God But praying to Saints and worshipping of Images or of the Eucharist Prayers for the delivery of the dead out of Purgatory the Communion in one kind Masses without Communions being additions to or detractions from that simplicity of Gods service which the originall order of the Church delivereth visible to common reason comparing the present order of the Church of Rome with the Scriptures and primitive records of the Church there is no cause to think that the Catholick Church is disowned by laying them aside It is true it was an extraordinary act of Secular Power in Church maters to inforce the change without any consent from the greater part of the Church But if the matter of the change be the restoring of Lawes which our common Christianity as well as the Primitive orders of the Church of both which Christian Powers are borne Protectors make requisite the secular power acteth within the sphere of it and the division is not imputable to them that make the change but to them that refuse their concurrence to it Well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire thereof to restore publick Penance been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates and not stifled by the tares of Puritanisme growing up with the Reformation of it For as there can be no just pretense of Reformation when the effect of it is not the frequentation of Gods publick service in that forme which it restoreth but the suppressing of it in that form which it rejecteth So the communion of the Eucharist being the chiefe office in which it consisteth the abolishing of private Masses is an unsusticient pretense for Reformation where that provision for the frequenting of the communion is not made which the restoring of the order in force before private Masses came in requireth Nor can any meane be imagined to maintaine continuall communion with that purity of conscience which the holinesse of Christianity requireth but the restoring of Penance In fine if any thing may have been defective or amisse in that order which the Church of England establisheth it is but justice to compare it in grosse with both extreames which it avoideth and considering that it is not in any private man to make the body of the Church such as thâ—y could wish to serve God with to rest content in that he is not obliged to become a party to those things which he approves not conforming himself to the order in force in hope of that grace which communion with the Church in the offices of Gods service promiseth For consider againe what meanes of salvation all Christians have by communion with the Church of Rome All are bound to be at Masse on every Festivall day but to say onely so many Paters and so many Aves as belong to the hour Not to assist with their devotions that which they understand not much lesse
And yee shall be my Disciples And Luke XIV 26 27. Whoso cometh to 〈◊〉 and hatâ—th not father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters yea and himself cannot be my Disciple And whose taketh not up his Crosse and followeth â—ee cannot be my Disciple To the same purpose Mâ—â— X 38. XVI 24. Mark VIII 34. X. 21. Luke IX 23. And S. Paul plainly declareth the Galaâ—ians fallen from all benefit of the Gospel if to avoid the Crosse of Christ they should â—alk the profession of their Christianity to be circumcised Gâ—l V. 11. VI. 12 14. S. John charges the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Apoc. II. 14 15 20. to have some that hold the doctrine of Balaâ—m who taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel of things offered to Idols and Whâ—râ—dome which is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes And to suffer the woman Jâ—zabel calling her self a Prophetesse to teach and lead the servants of God into the error of whoredome and eating things sacrificed to Idols S. Peter 1 Pet. II. 15. and S. Jude 11. charge the Gnosticks whom they write against in those places that they go the way of Balaams that brought the Israelites to joyn with Bâ—â—l Peâ—r taking the invitation of their mistresses to the sacrifices of their Idols Whom Ireneus Justin the Martyr Origen Clâ—mons Alexandriâ—us and Tertulliâ—â— witnesse to have made the outward act of Idolatry in eating things sacrificed to Idols an indifferent thing that they might avoid persecution by complying with the Gentiles in that as with the Jewes in being circumcised And now after sixteen hundred yeares Wee are told that all that ever suffered for Christianity since the Apostles who were to witnesse what they saw our Lord doe and heard him say were mutinous sooles in laying down their lives to testifie that which they were not obliged to witnesse or rather which they were obliged not to witnesse the secular power requiting them not to witnesse it Wee have found one that calls himself a Christian wiser than our Lord and his Apostles as they called themselves Gnosticks because they pretended to know more than the Apostles that can tell Christians a way to escape the Crosse of Christ by renouncing Christianity and not fail of the promises thereof by believing the truth of it But they were the Disciples of Simon Magus and not of Christ that did so nor did they expect salvation by the Christianity which they counterseited but by that secret knowledg which they pretended to have discovered beyond that which all Christians had learned from the Apostles Though they went for Christians among the Gentiles who knew not what Christians were so that the Name of God was blasphemed because of them as the Apostle saith 1 Pet. II. 2. because their monstrous abominations were thought to be the practices of Christians Whether any man besides before this new Dogmatist pretending to be a Christian professed a freedom to renounce Christ in any case I am yet to learn Sure I am the Jewes under Antiochus Epiphanes died freely rather than eat Swines flesh or give any occasion to think that they fell from their Law and from God that gave it as the Prophet Daniel and his Fellowes had left them example to do And therefore by the same means and upon the same grounds for which wee receive our Christianity it stands evidenced to us that wee are bound to profess it that is to say by the Scriptures and the consent of all Christians that receive the Scriptures As for Traditions regulating the order to be observed in the communion of the Church there is so little question to be made of the consent of all Church writers that it shall serve my turn to produce the noted words of Tâ—rtullian de Cor. cap. III. Plaâ—â— nâ—gabimus traditionem recipiendam si nulla example prejudicent aliarum observationum quas sine ullius Scripturae instrumento solius traditionis titulo exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus Denique ut à baptismate ingrediar Aquam aditnri ibidem sed prius in Ecclesiâ sub Antistitis manu contest amur nos renunciare Diabolo pompae angelis ejus dehinc ter niergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quà m Domintes in Evangelio determinavit Indè suscepti lactis mellis concordiam praegustamus Exque eâ die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadam abstinemus Eucharistiae sacramentum in tempore victlus omnibus mandatum à Domino etiam antelucanis coetibus nec de aliorum manu quà m praesidentium sumimus Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eâdem immunitate à die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur Ad omnem progressum atque promotum ad omnem aditum exitum ad vestitum ad calceatum ad lavacra ad mensas ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conversatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo terimus Plainly wee must deny to receive this Tradition if there be no examples of other observations for a prejudice which without any instrument in writing the onely title of Tradition and plea of Custome from it maintaineth In fine to begin with baptisme Going into the water not onely there but somewhat afore in the Church under the hand of our President wee take witnesse that wee renounce the Devil his pomp and Angels Then wee are drenched thrice answering somewhat more than our Lord in the Gospel hath limited Being taken up from thence wee fore-taste a mixture of milk and honey And from that day wee forbear our daily bathing all the week The Sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord commanded at the time of meat and all wee take also at our assemblies before day but at no mans hand but our Presidents Wee offer for those that dye and again upon the anniversary of their birth Wee count it unlawfull to fast or worship kneeling upon the Lords day The same privilege wee injoy from Easter to Whitsuntide Wee are troubled to have any thing even of our ordinary cup or bread scattered upon the earth At all going forth or advancing at all coming in and going out at putting on clothes or shooes at watching at lying or sitting down or to table at bringing in light whatsoever conversation wee exercise wee rub our foreheads with the sign of the Crosse I must here take notice of an exception to this authority of Tertullian that hee was a Montanist or inclining to the Montanists when hee writ it And marvail that prejudice in Religion should transport learned Christians so farre as to deny the records of the Church that credit which common sense allowes all records of historical truth and which all Learning allowes the writings of Mahumetans Jewes and Pagans And this consideration I interpose the
and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is a very great miracle taking that to be miraculous which requires the infinite power of God to effect it not that which contains a visible effect thereof apt to bear witnesse to that truth which it is done to confirm I must remit you to that which hath been already said to judge whether the miracle consist in abolishing the substance of the Elements and substituting the body and bloud of Christ in their stead Or in placing the substance of Christs body and bloud under the same dimensions in which the substance of the Elements subsisteth Or rather then either of both that it be enough to ingage the infinite power of God that by his Spirit hee tendreth the flesh and bloud of Christ so Sacramentally present in the Elements that whoso receiveth them faithfully thereby communicates as truly in the Spirit of God according to his Spirit as according to his body hee communicates Sacramentally in his body and bloud Here is the place for mee to allege those Scriptures which inform us of the true nature and properties of the flesh and bloud of Christ remaining in his body even now that it is glorified For if in the proper dimensions thereof hee parted from his Disciples and went was carried or lifted and taken up into heaven Acts I. 2 9 10. 1 Pet. III. 22. Luke XXIV 50 51. Mark XVI 19. If in the same visible form and dimensions hee shall come again to judgement Acts I. 11. 1 Thes IV. 16. if the Heavens must receive him till that time for sure no man will be much tempted with that frivolous conceit that S. Peters words Acts III. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to be construed whom it behoveth to contain the Heavens but whom it behoveth that the Heavens contain Unlesse it could appear how S. Peter should understand the body of Christ to contain the heavens not the heavens it sitting at Gods right han◠till his Enemies be made his foot-stool Psal CX 1. if to that purpose hee leave the world John XVI 28. no more to be in it XVII 11. so that wee shall have him no more with us Mat. XXVI 11. it behoveth us to understand how wee are informed that the promise of his body and bloud in the Eucharist imports an exception to so many declarations before wee believe it Indeed there is no place of Gods right hand by sitting down at which wee may say that our Lords body becomes confined to the said place But seeing the flesh of Christ is taken up into Heaven to sit down at Gods right hand Though by his sitting down at Gods right hand wee understand the man Christ to be put into the exercise of that divine power and command which his Mediators Office requires Yet his body wee must understand to be confined to that place where the Majesty of God appears to those that attend upon his Throne Neither shall the appearing of Christ to S. Paul Acts XXIII 11. be any exception to this appointment Hee that would insist indeed that the body of Christ stood over Paul in the Castle where then hee lodged must say that it left Heaven for that purpose For that is the miracle which the Text expresseth that hee was there whose ascent into Heaven it had reported afore But seeing the very body of Christ might in a vision of Prophesie appear to Paul in the Spirit without any contravention to that determination which the Scripture otherwise had expressed Were it not madnesse to go about to limit the sense and effect of it upon pretense of a promise altogether impertinent to the occasion in hand and every whit as properly to be understood without so limiting the sense of it This is all the argument that I pretend to maintain upon this consideration Knowing well enough that it is said indeed that the flesh of Christ remaining in Heaven in the proper dimensions thereof which the Exaltation allowes nothing hinders the same to be present under the dimensions of the Elements whether the substance of them be there which Consubstantiation allowes or whether they be abolished as Transubstantiation requires Which hee that would contradict must enter here into a Philosophical dispute whether or no the infinite power of God can bring to passe either or neither of these effects That is to say whether it imply a contradiction that the body and bloud of Christ which is as sure in Heaven as the faith of Christ is sure should at the same time be present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist under the dimensions of the Elements whether wee suppose the substance of them to be abolished or to remain present This dispute I am resolved not to touch at this time Partly for that reason which I have alleged upon other occasions Because I desire to discharge this Book being written in our mother tongue of all Philosophical disputes tending rather to puzzle than to edifie the main of those that speak English Partly for a reason peculiar to this point because it hath been argued that if wee deny Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation as contradictory to reason there can be no cause why wee should cleave to the Faith of the Trinity which every man sees to be no lesse contradictory to humane reason than either of both For though I do no ways admit this consequence because it is evident that the nature of bodily substance is far better comprehended by mans understanding than the incomprehensible nature of God which it is impossible to apprehend any thing of but under the resemblance of something belonging to sensible substance yet I am willing to go to issue without drawing this dispute into consequence referring to judgment whether the evidence for Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation be such as for the holy Trinity out of the Scriptures That is to say whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist is so to be understood as to void the confining of them to those dimensions which the Scripture allowes them in Heaven And this as necessarily by the Scripture as the Scripture necessarily obligeth to believe the Holy Trinity When as it may be more properly to the nature of the businesse understood mystically as in a Sacrament intended to convey the communion of his Spirit In the mean time allowing any man that submits his reason to all that Christianity imports the sober use of it in disputing whether the presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist as Consubstantiation or as Transubstantiation requires be contradictory to the evidence of reason or not CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Liturgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is no Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements COming now to consider wherein the Consecration of the Eucharist consists I find
no opinion on foot but that which hath taken possession by the authority of the School-Doctors that it is performed by the recital of these words This is my body This is my bloud in the Canon that is the Canonical or Regular Prayer for the Consecration of the Eucharist of the Masse For those that have set aside this Prayer and do not allow the opinion that these words are operative to the effecting of that which the institution of the Eucharist promises though they retain the recital of them in the action yet have not declared any common agreement wherein they intend to maintain the Consecration of the Eucharist to stand And is it not then free for mee to declare that I could never rest satisfied with this opinion of the School-Doctors as finding it to offer violence to common sense and the truest intention of that which wee may see done in consecrating the Eucharist For when our Lord takes the Elements in his hands and blesses them or gives God thanks over them then breaks the bread and delivering them bids his Disciples take and eat them because they are his body and bloud is it not manifest that they are so called in regard of something which hee had already done about them when delivering them hee calls them at that present time of delivering them that which hee could not call them afore his body and bloud No say they that is easily understood otherwise from the common customes which men use in civil conveyances Nothing being more usual by several customes of several nations then to convey the right and possession of house or land by delivering writings testifying certain deeds done to that effect to put in possession of a house by delivering the key or the post to be held or putting into the house by delivering a turf of the land to be conveyed to put into rightful possession of the same adding the like words to these Here is this house or this land take it for thine own But in vain Those that use this escape consider not that our Lord said these words Take eat drink this is my body this is my bloud when hee delivered them So that if by saying these words hee made them that which the words signifie then by delivering them hee made them that which they signifie For so the like words serve in delivering possession to expresse the intent of him that delivers it To which overt act of delivering the right of possession and the conveying of it is as much to be ascribed as to the words which animate it by expressing the intent of it Which if it be true then were the Elements which our Lord delivered to his Disciples consecrated by delivering them And therefore by consequence the Eucharist is never consecrated but by delivering of it Seeing of necessity the Eucharist is consecrated by the same means as the first which Christ communicated to his Disciples was consecrated But this can by no means stand with the intent of them that maintain this opinion supposing as they do that the Sacrament is consecrated before it be delivered to them that receive it And hence starts another argument For these words as they are used in consecrating the Eucharist are part of the rehersal of that which ouâ— Lord Christ did when hee consecrated that Eucharist which hee gave his Disciples And will any reason endure this that the Eucharist be thought to be consecrated by reciâ—ing what Christ said when hee delivered that Eucharist which hee had consecrated And not by doing what Christ commanded to be done when hee appointed it to be celebrated Certainly hee that sayes Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it saying Take eat this is my body sayes what Christ did and said before and when hee delivered it Hee that sayes further that hee said do this in remembrance of mee sayes that Christ instituted this Sacrament But to say that Christ instituted this Sacrament is not to consecrate that Sacrament which Christ instituted That is not done but by doing that which Christ is said to have done And is not Christ said to have blessed the Elements Is it not said that having taken and blessed and broken the bread delivering it to his Disciples hee affirmed it to be his body at the present when hee delivered it Can the becoming of it his body be imputed to the taking or breaking or delivering of it Doth it not remain then that it be imputed to the blessing of it Here finding it evident by comparing the Evangelists one with another and with S. Paul that blessing and giving of thanks in this case are both one and the same thing signified by two words I must needs inferre that blessing the Elements is nothing else but giving God thanks over them which at the present our Lord had in hand with intent to make them the Sacrament of his body and bloud The people of God in our Lords time were wont to take nothing for meat or for drink without first giving God thanks solemnly for it as they had it in hand You may see how scrupulous they were in this point by the title of Blessings the first of the Talmud where you have those forms of thanks-giving recorded and the circumstances at which they were to be used in receiving several kinds which were some of them doubtlesse more ancient than our Lords time A practice fitting for Christianity to continue setting aside that superstitious scrupulosity of forms and circumstances wherein the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees consisted Therefore S. Paul withstanding those Hereticks that taught to abstain from meats which God hath made to be participated with thanks-giving by the faithful and such as have known the truth 1 Tim. IV. 3 4 5. addes for his reason Because every creature of God is good and none to be rejected received with thanks-giving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer The word of God inabling Christians to receive it with a good conscience so as they may expect Gods blessing which they have desired by their prayers For is it not manifest that having said that every creature is good which a Christian receives with thanks-giving when hee addes that it is sanctified by prayer grounded on Gods words hee includes in that thanksgiving which hee means prayer to God for a blessing upon it The creatures of God then are sanctified to the nourishment of our bodies by Thanks-gving with prayer for Gods blessing And shall wee think that that Thanks-giving wherewith they are sanctified to the nourishment of our Souls doth not include prayer to the effect intended that they may become the body and bloud of Christ which God by this Sacrament pretends to feed our Souls with And doth not the execution of our Saviours Institution when hee sayes Do this consist in giving God thanks for the redemption of Mankind with prayer that wee may be fed by the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist
a prejudice peremptorily over-ruling all the pety exceptions that our time hath produced to dissolve this Unity which ought to have been preferred before them had they been just and true as none of them proveth CHAP. XXIV The Service of God to be prescribed in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kindes commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse I Would now make one Controversie more how much soever I pretend to abate Controversies than hitherto hath been disputed between the Reformation and the Church of Rome because though wee hear not of it in our books of Controversies yet in deed and in practice it is the most visible difference between the exercice of Religion in the two professions that you can name For what is it that men go to Church for but to hear a Sermon on one side and to hear a Mass on the other side And yet among so many books of Controversies who hath disputed whether a man is rather to go to Church to hear a Sermon or not to hear a Mass but to receive the Eucharist This is the reason indeed why I dispute not this Controversie because the Mass should be the Eucharist but by abuses crept in by length of time is become something else untill I can state the question upon such terms as may make the reason of Reformation visible Whether the celebration of the Eucharist is to be done in a Language which the people for the most part understand not in Latine as the Mass supposing the most part understand it not is first to be setled before wee inquire what it is that Christians chiefly assemble themselves for Though the question concerns not the Eucharist any more than the other offices of Gods publick Service onely as the Eucharist if it prove the principal of them is principally concerned in it I am then to confesse in the beginning that those of the Church of Rome have a strong and weighty objection against mee why they ought not to give way that the Service of the Church though in a form preseribed by the Church as I require should be celebrated in the Vulgar Languages which every people understand The objection is drawn from that which wee have seen come to pass For the Service of the Church the form and terms of it being submitted to the construction of every one because in English hath given occasion to people utterly unable to judg either how agreeable maters excepted against are to Christianity or how necessary the form to the preservation of unity in the Church first to desire a change then to seek it in a way of fact though by dissolving the Unity of this Church For hee that maintains as I do that whatsoever defects the form established may have are not of waight to perswade a change in case of danger to Unity And secondly that those who have attempted the change have not had either the lot or the skill to light upon the true defects of it but to change for the worse in all things considerable must needs affirm that otherwise they could never have had the means to possess mens fansies with those appearances of reason for it which have made them think themselves wise enough to undertake so great a change And truly there is nothing so dangerous to Christianity as a superficial skill in the Scriptures and maters of the Church Which may move them that are puffed up with it to attempt that for the best which it cannot inable them for to see that so it is indeed Whereas they who hold no opinion in maters above their capacity because concerning the state of the whole are at better leisure to seek their salvation by making their benefit of the order provided Seeing then it cannot be denied that the benefit of having the Service of God prescribed by the Church in our Vulgar English hath occasioned so great a mischief as the destruction of it it seems the Church of Rome hath reason to refuse children edge tools to cut themselves with in not giving way to the publick Service of God in the Vulgar Languages Unless it could be maintained that no form ought to be prescribed which is all one as to say that there ought to be no Church in as much as there can be no Unity in the Faith of Christ and the Service of God according to the same otherwise Now that you may judg what effect this objection ought to have wee must remember S. Pauls dispute upon another occasion indeed but from the same grounds and reasons which are to be alleged for the edification of the Church in our case God had stirred up many Prophets in the Church of Corinth together with those who celebrated the mysteries of Christianity in unknown Languages and others that could interpret the same in the Vulgar partly out of an intent to manifest to the Gentiles and Jews his own presence in his Church including and presupposing the truth of Christianity but partly also for the instruction of the people novices in Christianity for a great part in the truth of it and for the celebration of those Offices wherewith hee is to be served by his Church It came to pass that divers puffed up with the conceit of Gods using them to demonstrate his presence among his people took upon them to bring forth those things which the Spirit of God moved them to speak in unknown Languages at the publick assemblies of the Church Who might indeed admire the work of God but could neither improve their knowledg in his truth nor exercice their devotion in his praises or those prayers to him which were uttered in an unknown Language This is that which the Apostle disputeth against throughout the fourteenth Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians making express mention of Prayers Blessings which I have showed to be the consecration of the Eucharist and Psalms ver 14-17-26 and concluding v. 27 28. that no man speak any thing in the Church though it be that doctrine those prayers or praises of God which his own Spirit suggesteth unless there be some body present that can interpret Which what case can there fall out for the Church which it reacheth not For you see S. Paul excludeth out of the Church even the dictates of Gods Spirit evidencing his presence in the Church by miraculous operations unless they may be interpreted for the edification and direction of the Church What can hee then admit for the Service of God in the name of his Church or for the instruction thereof which it can neither be instructed by nor offer unto him for his service Nay what cause can there be why the Church should meet according to S. Paul if there be nothing done that is understood What