AN EPILOGUE TO THE TRAGEDY OF THE Church of England BEING A Necessary Consideration and brief Resolution of the chief Controversies in Religion that divide the Western Church Occasioned by the present Calamity of the CHURCH of ENGLAND In three BOOKS viz. Of I. The Principles of Christian Truth II. The Covenant of Grace III. The Lawes of the Church By HERBERT THORNDIKE LONDON Printed by J. M. and T. R. for J. Martin J. Allestry and T. Dicas and are to be sold at the sign of the BELL in St PAUL's Church-yard M.DC.LIX A PREFACE To all Christian Readers IT cannot seem strange that a man in my case removed by the force of the Warr from the Service of the Church should dedicate his time to the consideration of those Controversies which cause division in the Church For what could I do more to the satisfaction of mine own judgment than to seek a solution what truth it is the oversight whereof hath divided the Church and therefore the sight whereof ought to unite it But that I should publish the result of my thoughts to the world this even to them that cannot but allow my conversing with those thoughts may seem to fall under the Historians censure Sâ—ipsum fatiganâ—o nihil aliud quâm odium quaerere extremae esse dementiae That to take pains to get nothing but displeasure is the extremity of madness Socrates if wee believe his Apology in Plato could never rest for his Genius alwayes putting him upon disputes tending to convict men that they knew not what they thought they knew The displeasure which this got him hee makes the true cause of his death The opinion which I publish being indeed the fruit of more time and leisure of less ingagement to the world than others are under will seem a charge upon those who ingage otherwise And when besides so much interest of this world depends upon the divisions of the Church what am I to expect but Great is Diana of the Ephesians My Apology is this The title of Reformation which the late Warr pretended mentioned onely Episcopacy and the Service The effect of it was a new Confession of Faith a new Catechism a new Directory all new With chapter and verse indeed quoted in the margine but as well over against their own new inventions as over against the Old Faith of the Church This burthen was as easily kicked off by the Congregations as layed on by the Presbyteries As carrying indeed no conviction with it but the Sword and what penalties the Sword should inforce it with Which failing what is come in stead of it to warrant the salvation of Christians but that the Bible is preached which what Heresie disowneth and by them whom the Tryers count godly men Make they what they can of it I from my non age had embraced the Church of England and attained the Order of Priesthood in it upon supposition that it was a true Church and salvation to be had in it and by it Owning nevertheless as the Church of England did own the Church of Rome for a Church in which salvation though more difficult yet might be had and obtained That there is no such thing as a Church by Gods Law in the nature of a Body which this state of Religion requireth is opposite to an Article of my Creed who alwayes thought my self a member of such a Body by being of the Church of England The issue of that which I have published concerning that title of Reformation which the Warr pretended was this That they are Schismaticks that concurr to the breaking or destroying of the Church of England for those causes And the objection there necessarily starting Why the Church of England no Schismaticks in Reforming without the Church of Rome My answer was that the cause of Reforming must justifie the change which it maketh without consent of the Whole Church For the pretense of Infallibility in the Church on the one side the pretense of the Word and Sacraments for marks of the Church on the other side I hold equally frivolous As equally declaring a resolution never to be tried by reason in that which wee alwayes dispute For what dispute remains iâ— the Decrees of the Council of Trent be Infallible If that form of Doctrine and ministring the Sacraments which the Reformation may pretend be marks to distinguish a Church from no Church If they were where there is no such form there are no such marks And therefore no such thing as a Church Nor is it so easie to destroy these doubts in mens judgments as the Laws by which the Church of England stood And if the salvation of a Christian consist in professing the common Christianity as I show you at large shall not the salvation of a Divine consist in professing what he hath attained to believe when hee thinks the exigent of the time renders it necessary to the salvation of Gods people How shall hee otherwise be ministerial to the work of Gods Grace in strengthening them that stand in comforting and helping the weak in raising them that are fallen in resolving the doubtfull without searching the bottom of the cause Nay how shall hee make reparation for the offenses hee may have given by not knowing that which now hee thinks hee knows The causes of division have a certain dependence upon common principles a certain correspondence one with another which when it cannot be declared the satisfaction which a man intends is quite defeated when it is declared that dissatisfaction which the consideration of particulars of less waight causeth must needs cease Whether it were the distrust of my own ability or the love of other imployment or whatsoever it were that diverted mee from considering the consequence of those principles which I alwayes had till I might come to that resolution which now I declare Neither was I satisfied till I had it nor having it till I had declared it And if I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh or like a woman ready to bring forth that is as Ecclesiasticus saith like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart I am in this I hope no fool of Solomons but with S. Paul a fool for Christs sake Now the mischiefs which division in the Church createth being invaluable all the benefit that I can perceive it yield is this that the offenses which it causeth seem to drown and swallow up as it were that offense which declaring the truth in another time would produce For Unity in the Church is of so great advantage to the service of God and that Christianity from whence it proceedeth that it ought to overshadow and cover very great imperfections in the Laws of the Church All Laws being subject to the like Especially seeing I maintain that the Church by divine institution is in point of right one visible Body consisting in the communion of all Christians in the offices of Gods service and ought by humane administration in point
And therefore as every Church is a Body by it self and all Churches notwithstanding bound to make one Body by visible communion one with another which Body is the Catholick Church So is this common stock of the Church provided for the maintenance first of that Church whose it is then of the whole Church by defraying the charge of those correspondences whereby the unity thereof is intertained In the place afore-quoted out of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State you shall finde those Scriptures alleged which speak of the Collections of other Churches for the maintenance of the Church of Jerusalem the then Mother Church of all Churches And in this Book afore Chap. X. you have evidence that the correspondence between all Churches by which the communion of all was to be maintained was instituted and set on foot by the Apostles You have therefore evidence that such a stock was requisite even in regard of correspondence between several Churches when you see upon what businesse it was spent Whether this correspondence were exercised in holding of Councils or by dayly intercourse and intelligence the case was alwaies the same as at the Council at Ariminum where the Fathers complained that they were detained against their will as to the great charge of them who were to maintaine their Representatives there And if my memory faile not the British Bishops particularly in Sulpitius Severus that their Churches were not able to maintaine them there at the charge which was requisite For Constantine indeed at the Council of Nicaea had furnished not onely the wagons of the Exchequer to convey them to the place but also the greatest part if not their whole charge during the action But his son intending by duresse to constrain them to decree that which hee intended because hee knew that if they decreed it not his authority would be of no more effect to induce the Church to receive it than the Heathen Emperors had been to induce it to renounce Christianity using his Soveraign Power in commanding his subjects to assemble and continue assembled layed for a further burthen and duresse upon them to continue their at their own charge that is at the charge of their Churches I will conclude with a memorable passage of S. Gregory Nazianzens in Julianum I. where hee tells us that among other designes os the Apostate to extinguish Christianity one was to bring the Lawes of the Church into use among the Gentiles as the means to propagate and maintain their Idolatry which was visibly the means to propagate and maintain Christianity Indeed it is a testimony that concerneth all parts of Church Law and evidences all the parts of Ecclesiastical Power that I have insisted upon But because it mentioneth partly the erecting of Hospitals for the correspondence of Christians I have put it here in the last place where I allege the practice of the Church for the corporation of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee was ready to set up Auditories in stead of Churches in every City and Presidents of higher and lower States readings and expositions of the doctrines of the Gentiles both which compose mens manners and the more abstruse Also in part the forme of Prayers and censuring of sinners according to their measure Of Catechizing also and Baptizing and other things which manifestly belong to the good order that is among us Besides to found Hospitals to intertain strangers and convents of Virgins and Monasteries and the humanity which wee use to the poore Also beside the rest of our order that of leters of mark which wee give to those that need when they travail from Countrey to Countrey Julian believed not that these Orders came from God because hee believed not Christianity Those that can believe as hee did of these Orders why not of Christianity Those Christians whose purses maintained the charge of them would not have been so forward had they thought themselves left free to themselves without obligation from our Lord by his Apostles And to that which hath been said to make evidence of this Law and other Lawes whereby the Church was made a Corporation by the Apostles I will here desire the Reader to adde all that hee shall finde written by Epiphanius in the end of his work against all Heresies concerning the Rules and customs of that one Church which continueth so only by separating from them Perhaps they who can think the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles meer fables because the books were not written by them to whom they are intitled will not believe that Epiphanius would have writ the same things had they not been real and visible 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 I Am now come to the point principally insisted on for all this is premised for a ground to that contradiction which I must frame to that which hath been said against the Power of Excommunicating in the Church To which insisting upon the premises I say That I am so farr from pretending that right to depend upon the Church by virtue of the Law that I insist expresly that there was no such thing introduced by Moses Law or in force under the Law of Nature in the time of the Patriarchs And not onely admit but as for my Interest demand all that for truth which the first book de Synedriis hath proved at large and saved all them that believe it the pains of doing iâ— again That Excommunication came in force in the Synagogue after the Captivity and in the dispersions of the Jewes when they desiring as their duty was to maintaine Gods Law by which they were to be governed and not having the Power of insticting Penalties requisite to maintaine it as not being inabled by their Soveraignes devised a course that might appear reasonable because necessary upon â—upposition of their own Law and yet lesse presuming upon the Soveraigne Power Which was to devest those that should incurr that forfeit of the privilege of a Jew and to banish him the conversation of his native people either in whole or in part as the penalty was to be measured by the offense And truly I count my self with the world obliged to him that hath imployed so much learning to show it and that it will onely become the wilfulness of them who neither understand the Scriptures themselves nor will learn of them that do to imagine an Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the Secular under the Law in which the Priesthood were Judges And to take paines to show themselves uncapable of truth by seeking to maintain that which hee hath showed to be evidently false But this being granted I do not understand what reason can be imagined why it
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
with virgines and once maried people And shall thy sacrifice freely ascend And among other affections of a good minde wilt thou desire chastity for thee and thy wife I dispute not here how lawfull it is to pray for the dead which Tertullian touches again de Monogamiâ X. de Animâ LVIII This Tertullian supposes that if a Christian have two wives hee must offer that the Eucharist may be celebrated and that at the celebrating of it the Priest may pray for those whom hee mentions as the occasion of celebrating it The birth-dayes of Martyrs that is the Anniversaries of their sufferings was another occasion of celebrating the Eucharist as in Tertullian so in S. Cyprian Epist XXXIV Sacrificium pro eis semper ut meminiâ—â—is offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies annuâ commemoratione celebâ—an us Wee alwaies offer sacrifice for them as you remember when wee celebrate the yearly commemoration of the Martyrs suffering dayes Therefore where the â—ame S. Cyprian forbids offering the names of those that had fallen away in persecution and offering for them Epist IX XI hee forbids the receiving of their offerings and by consequence praying for them at the Eucharist Epiphanius Haer. XXX speaking of the Patriarch of the Jewes baptized in private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The said Patriarâ—â—â—aâ—inâ—â—â— his hand a very considerable summ of gold streâ—ched out his hand and gave it to â—â—e Bishop saying Offer for mee S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag V. Eâ—roe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then that spiritual sacrifice that unbloudy service being done consecrâ—tâ—â— over that propitiatory sacrifice wee beseech God for the common peace of the Churches for the State of the world for the Kings their armies and allies for the sick c. adding that praying for the departed wee offer to God Christ cruciâ—â—ed â—or our sins to render him propitious to them and to us Of which effect in due place the intent hereby appears For here as hee calls it a Sacrifice upon the Consecration so hee plainly sets down wherein the propitiation which it effecteth consists according to the Catholick Church For to say truth to the purpose in hand I can produce nothing like that which I have said already in my Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church to which I remit you for the rest pag. 370-382 that in all the Liturgies there is a place where mention is to be made of all States of the Church for whom the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated are offered And likewise a place where the Eucharist being consecrated prayer is made in behalf of all States in the Church that is to say the Sacrifice of Christ his Crosse there present is offered up to move God to grant them all that is desired by the regular and continual prayers of the Church And among them there is a special place for those that offer at present If any man be moved to imagine that any part hereof is prejudicial to that Reformation which the Church of England professeth for I professe from the beginning not to be sâ—rupulous of offending those that offend it I remit him to that learned Appendix of Dr Field to his third book of the Church the purpose whereof in answer to the question where the Reformed Church was before Luther is to show that in this point as in others there handled the sense of the whole Church of Christ even to the time of Luther and to the Council of Trent was no other than that which the Church of England embraceth and cherisheth Thereby to show that the Reformation thereof never pretended to found a new Church but to preserve that which was by taking away those corruptions which time and the enemies of Christianity had sown in the Lawes and customs of it Which hee doth so evidently perform in this point that I must needs challenge any man that hath a minde to blast any thing here said with the staâ—e calumny of Popery to consider first Whether hee can prove those things which the Authors past exception there quoted declare to be the sense of the Catholick Church at that time to contain any thing prejudicial to the Gospel of Christ and that purity thereof which the Reformation pretendeth And because I know hee cannot do it I rest secure of all blasphemies or slanders that can be forged upon this occasion Openly professing that those who will not acknowledg that condition of the Gospel and the promises thereof which I have demonstrated to be essential to Christianity it is for their interest to defame the sense of the Catholick Church with the slanderous aspersions of Popery that so they might seduce miserable creatures to believe that there is a faith which inâ—itles them to the promises of the Gospel not supposing them converted to the Christianity which it rendereth For seeing that propitiation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist pretendeth is grounded upon this condition of the Covenant of Grace as I have showed it is no mervail if they who pretend to reconcile the promises of the Gospel to the lusts of the flesh by which this world is injoyed indeavor to slander the purity of Christianity with those aspersions which they have seduced wretched people to count odious In fine it is not that consideration of a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the sense and practice of the Catholick Church inforceth but the violent interpretations of it which are made on both sides to both extremities that can give the leass pretense for division in the Church For while on the one side the sacrificing of Christ a new is so construed as if to doubt of the virtue of it in behalf of all that assist in it whether they communicate in it or not whether their devotions concurr to it or not were to doubt of the virtue of Christs Crosse it is no mervail if this create so great offense that the receiving of the Eucharist nay the assisting of it with the devotions of Christian people comes to be a mater of indifference On the other side while the renewing of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse by that representation thereof which the Eucharist tendreth for the redressing of the Covenant of Grace between God and those which receive is construed as prejudicial to that one Sacrifice whereby our Lord for ever hath perfected those whom hee sanctifieth no mervail if the very celebrating of it come to be a mater of indifference the effect whereof by believing that a man is predestinate or justified is had before and without it The mater of the Sacrifice then being so great a subject for the diviâ—ion upon so litle cause it is time for good Christians to awake and look about them and see that the lesse cause there is the greater good will the parties have to continue at distance In the mean time it is the common interest of Christianity even the means of their salvation by the
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be
Title to the salvation of Gods people they have enough in the Scriâ—tures interpreted by the Original Tradition practice of the whole â—hurch both to condemn the errors which the ground of their Comâ—â—nion obliges them to disown to give such a rule to the order of 〈◊〉 Communion in the offices of Gods service as the present state 〈◊〉 compared with the primitive state of those Christians who â—â—fir â—ucceeded the Apostles shall seem to require It is indeed a very great case to me that having declared against untrue and unsufficient causes for dividing the Church for which there can be no cause sufficient I have owned the cause which I think sufficient for a particular Church to provide for it selfe without the consent of the whole For by this meanes I secure my self from being accessory to Schisme and the innumerable mischiefes which it produceth But I confesse this declaration makes me liable to a consequence of very great importance That there is no true meane no just way to reconcile any difference in the Church but upon those grounds and those termes which I propose For supposing the Society of the Church by Gods Law upon what termes the least sucking Heresy amongst us is reconcileable to the party from which it broke last supposing it reconcileable upon the grounds and termes of our common Christianity upon the same termes is the Reformation reconcileable to the Church of Rome the Greek Church to the Latine all parts to the Whole the Congregations and Presbyteries to the Church of England Whereas not proceeding upon those grounds not standing on those termes all preâ—ense of reconciling even the Reformed among themselves will prove a meer pretense Laus Deo FINIS Faults escaped in the firse Booke PAge 7. line 47. r. shall it be disc pag. 20. l. 45. r. to all sentences p. 21. l. 50. 1 Thes V. 14 15. r. 12 13. l. 52 Heb. XII r. XIII 23. 39. r. the act 40. 6. then those r. better then â— 28. under-r undertooke 48. 30. r. washing or sitting downe to 59. 53. r. adulterers 66. 28. Ladies day r. Lords day 89. 53. secret to the r. seâ—reâ— so 95. 46. with r. which 115. 26. those found r. thes 116. 33. that this r. that is 121. 4. r. intertainment 122. 7. Church with r. with him 137. 8. without r. within 140. 13. r. virtue of the 147. 1. we had r. he had 57. r. indowment 155. 25. now have r. now are 172. 34. after Acts put 176. 25. dele rome 177. 52. r. he eat 178. 28. then it was r. as it was 181. 57. r. so continuall 182. 51. to Gods r. to use G. 183. 37. comming from Christ r. of Christ 185. 6. after lamented put 186. 21. there may r. may be 189. 29. r. change 190. 14. banquet r. banquet 28. passive r. positive 45. r. owned 193. 16 â—ele argument 221. 2. not up r. cast up 235. 18. if when r. when 237. 16. which the r. with the 37. aliver r. alone 241. 16. Ahab r. Jehn 248. 50. Jeroboams then r. Jeroboams sinne 250. 38. neither r. either Second Book Pag. 7. l. 30. r. we be p. 8. 36. John 7. 37. r. 39. 40. r. now if 20. 41. Joh. IV. r. Ephes IV. 22. 12. that those r. those that 62. 19. he pert r. be pâ—rt 23. Heb. IV. 16. r. 1. 68. of as r. of man as 71. 33. r. evidenced 101. 55. r. the Angels 109. 9. and both r. so bâ—th 116. 56. as you may by r. as you may see by 118. 35. Solomons r. Solomons words 36. r. composed 119. 51. dele â—â— 125. 28. r. to deriâ—e 26. 53. which r. with which 128. 31. r. they thought 162. 5. tendred r. raended 164. 54. serve or the purpose not r. serve the purpose or not 165. 24. concerning r. consining 56. upon necessity r. upon the like n. 166. 21. after that r. the line afore iâ—ports this or that 167. to see that it supposeth r. that it is sup 171. 55. r. comes not to passe 174. 45. will not r. shall not 184. 28. of that k. r. or that k. 57. for which they addict themselves to love r. which they addict themselves to for love 51. r. with the 189. 35. discerne r. deserve 192. 36. ye knowing r. ye knowe 193. 34. or r. if 195. 15. â—ay r. might 35. 1. Ad â—â—â—ah 198. 24. that is r. that it is prophets r. prophet 199. 12. were r. we are 17. in r. is 49. r. soverainty 201. 13. upon passe r. to â—asse 203. 31. generation r. regen 206. 49. observations r. observation 207. 51. lusted r. lasted 208. 56. teach r. reach 209. 10. deceâ—t r. decree 22. you r. them 26. verifying r. resolving 211. 34. supposed r. suppose 215. 21. causes r. clauses 216. 6. XI r. I. 217. 53. refutes r. refuses 218. â—agined r. imagining 52. without the bonds r. wâ—thâ—n the bounds 219. 9. adxe r. adde 220. 3. of the r. to the 37. r. allwayes freely doe it 221. 24. whereby r. that order 922. 34. by one r. by somâ— 223. 37. revealed r. related 224. 30. S. S. Austine point S. Austme 225. 57. of God r. to God 240. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 247 49. r. or to show 250. 12. they can be r. can be 251. 32. this part r. his â— 256. 55. in sending r. â—endriâ—g 259. 16. r. conceiving 260. 32. r. having excluded 35. r. proposes 261. 29. 31. r. premises premises 264. 27. r. 〈◊〉 281. 6. r. â—â—â— can 282. 38. r. distinguisâ—eâ—h 289. 45. r. which the 296. 26. let him in r. let them 297. 7. the rank of it r. the werk 300. 25. as I said 1. I said 304. 33. should be r. that God should 307. 13. but the r. be â—â—â—â—â— Third Book Pag. 6. l. 9. r. to be no more 12. 54. it not r. is not 14. 2. which r. with 16. 1. is not r. is the 19. 6. after r. afore 37. 47. r. though not under 54. 7. r. times r. termes 55. 53. r. promises 58. 21. truly one r. done 61. 23. r. on purpose 64. 21. r. S. Peter 65. 51. r. Zonarâ—â— 66. 10. a dore r. alone 69. 37. r. refused 38. r. construed 48. r. whatsoever 70. 1. r. Predestinatians 86. 1. r. Novatians 88. 55. r. Homil. 91. 25. r. Cappadocâ—â— 95. 25. r. Synedrâ—â—s 98. 58. repentance r. upon rep 110. 55. r. prescribed 111. 22. r. ministery 32. was Apostle r. we Apostles 113. 56. r. import 57. practice 1. Priests 115. 53. r. prefers 116. 4. for forn r. except for â— 117. 54. r. draw them 119. 57. corrected r. 〈◊〉 122. 1. time r. â—erme 123. 12. r. is it 128. 2. r. Mileu 137. 49. r. Gentium secuâ—â—â—m 〈◊〉 139. 13. r. her husbands brother 145. 4. r. all one 151. 29. r. setled 160. 16. r. Eldest 163. 58. r. will find 164. 41. according the r. to the 169. 33. r. the third 43. r. of the chief 178. 42. r. rights 191. 44. r. good works 197. 2. first r. seventh 206. 39. r. further for the ord 209. 1. r. so subject to 25. r. once a moneth 252. 2. r. if it be true all 273. 32. or so as 276. 46. or r. nor 277. 54. r. noâ— by the order 279. 2. r. conferred 280. 12. r. preached 282. â—2 and more r. and not 283. 46. r. oblige 285. 17. r. which God 44. upon r. up an 288. 10. r. God which tho 292. 20. seem r. serve 31â— 22. r. apparitions 316. 10. r. it is 318. 56. r. if the fire 327. 26. our r. one 328. 58. dele ne 334. 41. r. consecration 335. 29. in the r. is 336. 41. as he r. she 338. 7. r. grounded 56. this rec r. 〈◊〉 339. 31. r. variety 341. 22. r. and makes 26. not missing r. missing 29. any dif r. â—o â— 342. 16. r. which by to blessing 345. 30. r. Chrisme 36. hands r. bâ—nds 5â— some r. serve 349. 50. r. subsisteâ—â— 352. 6. r. premises 353. 53. instructing r. in serving 356. 55. sometimes 360. 7. r. no â— 364. 58. r. reasâ—â—able though noâ—â— 370. 55. r. Laickâ— 372. 53. r. ground 373. 38. r. necessarily 374. 5. r. degrees 374. 39. sureâ—y r. society 378. 13. r. as when 381. 36. r. upon Ep. but upon acts of the 385. 1. r. supposeth 40. r. supposition 54. r. of â—â—â— then that
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
our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answerâ—â—h The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as helpe to perform it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The prâ—perâ—y of satisfaction and punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholick Church 245 CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himselfe without the coming of Christ The promise of â—â—â— Gâ—spel dâ—pend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need 〈…〉 pâ—iâ—â—s that we might not The opinion that maketh justiâ—â—â—g 〈…〉 â—rust in God not true Yet not prejudicial to the Faith The dâ—câ—â—â— of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not preâ—udicial to the Faith As also that of Socinus 254 CHAP. XXXI The state of the question concerning the perseverance of those that are once justified Of three senses one true one inconsistent wiâ—h the faith the third neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith Evidence from â—â—â— writings of the Apostles From the Old Testament The grace of Proâ—heâ—â—e when it presupposeth sanctifying grace Answer to some texts and of S. Pauls mâ—aâ—â—ng in the VII of the Romans Of the Polygamy of the Fathers What assurance of Grace Christians may have The Tradition of the Church 266 CHAP. XXXII How the fulfilling of Gods Law is possible how impossible for a Christian Of the difference between mortall and veniall sinne What love of God and of our neighbour was necessary under the Old Testament Whether the Sermon in the Mount correct the false interpretation of the â—ewes or inhanse the obligatin of the Law Of the difference between matter of Precept and matter of Counsail and the Perfection of Christians 285 CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a worke of labour and time The necessity and essicacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practice of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholick Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice 300 The CONTENTS of the third Book CHAP. I. THe Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot page 1 CHAP. II. That the Natural substance of the Elements remaines in the Sacrament That the Body and Blood of Christ is neverthâ—lâ—sse present in the same when it is received noâ— by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Câ—â—sâ— necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradâ—ction nor improperty â—â— the words of our Lord. 3 CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living 〈◊〉 of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the 〈◊〉 thâ—â— câ—lâ—brates The Scâ—iâ—tureâ— that are alleged for the dependence of 〈◊〉 the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them b◠〈◊〉 â—â—ey are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the 〈◊〉 16 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 Lâ—â—urgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is â—o Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements 23 CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises 38 CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections 53 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 Disciplâ—â— are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel 58 CHAP. VIII What is alledged to impeach Tradition for Baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at years was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants get who dye baptized â—5 CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of 〈◊〉 by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministry of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offences Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth 73 CHAP. X. The Sâ—cts of the Montanists Novatians Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doâ—h 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 withoâ—â— the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands 86 CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem the debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assuraâ—ce of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England 98 CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely boaily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same 106 CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimoniall causes Mariage of one with one iâ—solubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church 114 CHAP. XIV Scripture alledged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectual S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The
I said there can be no sect as communicating in nothing visible as Christians But I need not have recourse to such an obscure Sect as this For the same is necessarily the opinion of all the sect that makes every Congregation Independent and Sovereign in Church maters For if particular Congregations be not obliged to joyn in communion to the constitution of one Church wee may perhaps understand the collection of all Congregations to be signified at once by the name of the Church but wee cannot imagine that the Church so understood can be obliged by any sentence that can passe in it And if this opinion be true it must be acknowledged as of late years it hath been disputed amongst us that there is no crime of Schisme in violating the unity of the Church but when a breach is made in a Congregation obliged to communicate one with another in Church maters For where there is no bond of unity what crime can there be in dissolving it This is then the ground of all Independent Congregations that there is no such thing as the Church understanding by the name of the Church a Society or Corporation founded upon a Charter of Gods which signification the addition of Catholick and Apostolick in our Creed hath hitherto been thought to determine But there is a second opinion in the Leviathan who allowes all points of Ecclesiastical Power in Excommunicating Ordaining and the rest to the Soveraign Powers that are Christian Though before the Empire was Christian hee granteth that the Churches that is to say the several Bodies of Christians that were dwelling in several Cities had and exercised some parts of the same right by virtue of the Scriptures As you may see pag. 274-279 287-292 Making that right which the Scriptures give them for the time to eschete to the Civil Power when it is Christian and dissolving the said Churches into the State or Common-wealth which once Christian is from thenceforth the Church And this I suppose upon this ground though hee doth not expresly allege it to that purpose Because the Scripture hath not the force of a Law obliging any man in justice to receive it till Soveraign Powers make it such to their subjects but onely contains good advice which hee that will may imbrace for his souls health and hee that will not at his peril may refuse Thus hee teacheth pag. 205. 281-287 If therefore the act of Soveraign Power give the Scripture the force of Law then hath it a just claim to all rights and Powers founded upon the Scripture as derived from it and therefore vested originally in it Hence followeth that desperate inference concerning the right of Civil Power in mater of Religion not for a Christian but for an Apostate to publish that if the Soveraign command a Christian to renounce Christ and the faith of Christ hee is bound to do it with his mouth but to believe with his heart And therefore much more to obey whatsoever hee commandeth in Religion besides whether to believe or to do The Reason Because in things not necessary to salvation the obedience due by Gods and mans Law to the Soveraign must take place Now there is nothing necessary to salvation saith hee but to believe that our Lord Jesus is the Christ All that the Scripture commandeth besides this is but the Law of Nature which when the Civil Law of every Land hath limited whosoever observes that Law cannot fail of fulfilling the Law of Nature These things you have pag. 321-330 The late learned Selden in his first book de Synedriis Judaeorum maintaining Erastus his opinion that there is no power of Excommunicating in the Church by Gods Law grants that which could not be denied that the Church did exercise such a Power before Constantine but not by any charter of Gods but by free consent of Christians among themselves pag. 243 244. Which if hee will follow the grain of his own reason hee is consequently to extend to the power of Ordaining and to all other rights which the Church as a Corporation founded by God can claim by Gods Law And upon this ground hee may dissolve the Church into the Common-wealth and make the power of it an eschere to the Civil Power that is Christian with lesse violence than the Leviathan doth Because whatsoever Corporations or Fraternities are bodied by sufferance of the State dissolve of themselves at the will of it and resolve the powers which they have created into the disposition of it And that this was his intent whoso considereth what hee hath written of the indowment of the Church in his History of Tithes of Ordinations in the second book de Synedriis of the right of the Civil Power in limiting causes of divorce in his Vxor Ebraica hath reason to judge as well as I who have heard him say that all pretense of Ecclesiastical Power is an imposture I say not that hee or the rest of Erastus his followers make themselves by the same consequence liable to those horrible consequences which the Leviathan admits But I say that they are to bethink themselves what right they will assign the Civil Power in determining controversies in Religion that may arise And what assurance they can give their subjects that their salvation is well provided for standing to their decrees Besides I was to mention these opinions here that those who take the sentence of the Church to be the first ground of Faith into which it is lastly resolved may see that they are to prove the Church to be a Corporation by divine Right before they can challenge any such power for it For that which is once denied it will be ridiculous to take for granted without proving it And whatsoever may be the right of the Church in deciding controversies of Faith it cannot be proved without evidence for this charter of the Church as you shall see by and by more at large CHAP. III. That neither the sentence of the Church nor the dictate of Gods Spirit can be the reason why the Scriptures are to be received No man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit without knowing that hee is a true Christian Which supposeth the truth of the Scripture The motives of Faith are the reason why the Scriptures are to be believed And the consent of Gods people the reason that evidences those motives to be infallibly true How the Scriptures are believed for themselves How a Circle is made in rendering a reason of the Faith The Scriptures are Gods Law to all to whom they are published by Gods act of publishing them But Civil Law by the act of Soveraign Powers in acting Christianity upon their Subjects IT would not be easie to finde an entrance into such a perplexed Question had not the dispute of it started another concerning the reason why wee believe the Scriptures whether upon the credit of the Church or for themselves or whether nothing but the Spirit of God speaking to each mans heart
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
salvation of all and that which becomes necessary to the salvation of some by reason of their particular states and conditions cannot be said The writings of the Apostles are their Epistles with their Acts and S. Johns Revelations if these may not be referred to the rank of their Epistles The chief of their Epistles that to the Romanes that to the Galatians that to the Ebrewes with the greatest part of the rest are either occasioned by the reservation which they used in declaring to those that were become Christians of Jewes their discharge from the Law as justified by Christ or by the secret indeavors of Hereticks pretending Commission from the Apostles on one side on the other practising compliance with the Jewes to seduce those that inclined to the Law to the damnable inventions of Simon Magus and his Successors But none of them pretendeth more than preventing or avoiding those particular disorders which appeared in the respective Churches For what the Apostles did in setling Christianity at Jerusalem or propagating it by S. Paul especially so farre as the book of the Acts relates what S. John saw touching the state of Christianity to come I suppose is something else than the summe of all that is necessary to the salvation of all Christians And though in discretion every man may presume that upon occasion of the expresse purposes of these writings there is nothing necessary to the salvation of all that is not touched in some place of them yet it is one thing to be touched upon the by another thing to be delivered upon expresse purpose For those things that are but touched upon occasion referring to the knowledge which they presuppose cannot must not containe the clear understanding of those things which they onely touch Unlesse wee will have the Writer so impertinent as upon every occasion to turne aside and instruct him that hee writes to in such things as hee supposes him to know afore So the reason why the summe or substance of Christianity is not clear in the Old Testament and Gospels is because it was not then clearly preached Why not in the writings of the Apostles is because it was clearly delivered afore the clear delivering of it being seen in the catechizing of them that came to the profession of the Gospel and the communion of the Church Beside this reason particular to the Apostles writings there is another that is seen not onely in the Law and Prophers as well as in them but in all ancient records of learning arising from the distance of time between us and the writing of them and the change which such a succession produceth in the stare of things necessarily inferting obscurity answerable to that difference in the condition of those things which they expresse There is no record of Learning so flight that any man who knowes what belongs to Learning can presume of a cleare understanding of it till by comparing it with other writings nearest to it in nature and time hee get satisfaction in it For such a change of language followes the changes that come to passe in Times and Places and Lawes and Fashions and the condition of persons consequent to the same that till they be understood by reading seeing and hearing not being available in languages out of use the meaning of Writers is not to be had from their words How much more in writings of such consideration as the Scriptures are to the Church of such antiquity as the Law and Prophets and the primitive Church of the Apostles of such difference from the present state of things as between the Law either flourishing under the Princes of Gods people or tolerated by their Soveraignes between the Gospel springing up in the midst of the Empire professing Heathenisme but protecting Judaisme and the Gospel professed and protected by Christian powers and people So little record remaining otherwise either of things done under the Law or under the Apostles so farre from priding themselves in writing books How much more I say must we be in the dark for the clear meaning of that whereof every tittle is conâ—â—derable That the Apostles writings were no way obscure to those they were directed to is to mee unquestionable For though it is reasonable that they should as wee see they do in some passages rise above the pitch of the common capacity even of them they were writ to least they should become subject to neglect So that for the most part they should not be understood of the most part would be a manifest inconvenience But it is no inconvenience that by distance of time they should become liable to the same difficulty of being understood which all other ancient writings necessarily become subject to And that reason appeareth no lesse in those things which concern the necessary salvation of all than in maters of lesse consequence It will therefore be hard to reconcile to any capacity of reason that which is advanced for the first truth towards the deciding of all Controversies of Faith that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scriptures to all understandings Those Scriptures which onely can be pretended to deliver the truth of Christianity clearly neither professing to deliver the whole summe and substance of it and being directed to those who are supposed already instructed in all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians Therefore this unreasonable presumption is not to create any difficulty to that reason of deciding Controversies of Faith which wee proceed to settle upon the premises I cannot tell whether or no it was requisite to say so much against a presumption meerly voluntary and which common experience contradicts For if all agreeing in the truth of Christianity and the Scriptures there remain dispute about things which some count necessary to salvation others not It is enough that the truth of Christianity inferreth means sufficient to clear the truth of what remaines on dispute But first it is manifest that what remaines in dispute is not of it self manifest to all that acknowledge the Scriptures but may become manifest to them that use such means as the truth of Christianity inforceth Neverthelesse since they that are in love with their own presumptions though never so dangerous to the supreme Majesty take whatsoever crosses them for a derogation to the Scriptures let thus much be said to show that by giving the Scriptures no man may presume that God intended to declare in them whatsoever is necessary to the salvation of all clearly to all understandings But if this must have been supposed as a principle or ground whereupon wee are to resolve all Controversies of Faith it would have been requisite to have showed us that this truth is of all other so much more clearly laid down in the Scriptures as that which concurres to the clearing of all ought it self to be the most clear Now if wee consider that this privilege of containing all that is necessary to the salvation of all belongs
the Temple to serve God with his then people Acts II. 42 44 46. V. 13. VI. 1 4. And shall wee think that all the Christians in Corinth where God had said to S. Paul that hee had many people Acts XVIII 10. could meet in one room because S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. XI 20. when yee meet together in one place For they must not onely meet together but sup together as the Apostle showes which would require a great room if God had many people there And all the believers at Jerusalem met together and supped together Acts II. 44 46. VI. 1. but not VIM in one room as I suppoâ—e Therefore at Corinth also there might be more Congregations than one where the Church was but one and all might meet together though in several places several assemblies In the mean time I do not hear what they say to that which I have alleged in my book of the Right of a Church in a Christian State pag. 44-50 to show that wee never read of more Churches than one in one City but every where of more than one in one Province in the writings of the Apostles And therefore I will here plead further That from the time of the Apostles to the Reformation which wherein it consisteth my businesse is to inquire and therefore not to suppose that it consisteth in every thing that hath been done all the Independents in the world shall never be able to show mee any thing called a Church but the Body of Christians that lived in one City and the territory of it Indeed at the first preaching of Christianity it must needs come to passe that the number of Christians in a very great City might be so little that they might meet all at once And the name of Cities might be extended to Townes and Villages that could make but few Congregations when the question was made whether they should make several Churches or resort to one As I have instanced there But because wee have yet extant antient lists of all the Churches of the Romane Empire and the Soveraignties into which it is dissolved punctually agreeing with the records of all Church Writers in comprising the whole summe of Christians within and under one City in one Church It may perhaps be found that all the Christians in a whole Nation might resort to one Church which was the Church of the Head City But that ever there were any Christians that took it for a Law that every Congregation is to be a Church before the Reformation it can by no means appear whatsoever hath been done since And therefore I challenge that all reasonable men must allow all Christians that succeeded the Apostles understood the meaning of their writings by their acts when they cast all the Christians in under one City every where into one Church then those who now challenge for a Law of God that all Congregations are to be Churches And thus farre it appears by the same evidence upon which wee accept of our common Christianity that is by the Scriptures and by the consent of all Christians that the Apostles so founded the Churches of their planting that they might be fit to concurre to the constitution of one whole Church CHAP. VII That the Apostles delivered to the Church a Summary of Christianity which all should be baptized were to profess Evidence out of the Scriptures Evidence out of the Scriptures for Tradition regulating the Communion of the Church and the Order of it Evidence for the Rule of Faith out of the records of the Church For the Canons of the Church and the pedegree of them from the Order established in the Church by the Apostles That the profession of Christianity and that by being baptized is necessary to the salvation of a Christian BUt I will grant that this were not evidence enough out of the Scriptures for a point of such consequence as it will appear to be of when it apâ—eares to be true were it not for the general inference that I made afore Here I challenge having proved against the Leviathan that whosoever acknowledges our Lord Jesus to be the Christ must acknowledge whatsoever hee teaches and delivers either by himself or the Apostles his Deputies to be Law to the Church That whatsoever it may appear any way that the Aposâ—lhs delivered to the Church to be observed in it is of that nature I say further it is evident by their writings that they delivered to the Church a certain Summary of Christianity which whosoever was admitted into the Church by Baâ—tisme underto professe and practise Indeed this is the main point now in hand that all interpretation of Scripture is to be confined within this Summary as the Rule of our common Christianity And therefore it may seem that I go about first to prove the Corporation of the Church by this Rule And then to prove the Rule by the consent of the Church whereby I pretend to evidence what the Apostles delivered to the Church for the Rule of our common Christianity But I can easily answer that it is one thing to question whether the Apostles did deliver any such Rule to the Church from the beginning or not Another what it containes and what belongs to it as part of it what not If it may appear by the writings of the Apostles that delivered it and by the acknowledgment of the Church that received it for what othâ—r meane can there be to make it appear that such a sense the Apostles did deliver to the Church it will be a great part of the evidence that they did found the Church for a Corporation wherein the profession of it might be preserved and wherein God mâ—â—â—t be served according to the profession of it And if this may appear then the consent of this Corporation will be as good evidence as the subject mater allowes whether any thing questionable be part of it or not Let us then heare the Apostles Thanks be to God saith S. Paul Rom. VI. 17. that being once slaves to sinne yee have obeyed from your heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you Had hee onely said it was dâ—livered they had not acknowledged themselves obliged but when hee sayes they obeyed it hee shows they were under the obligation that God cast on them by delivering it 2 Pet. II. 21. It had been better for them not to have owned the way of righteousnesse than having owned it to return from the holy commandement delivered What is this holy commandement what is this way of righteousnesse but in one word Christianity Which when hee saith it was delivered hee means by Metonymy that it was received because hee saith further that they had owned it The same is called by another Apostle Jude 3. the Faith once delivered to the Saints And S. Paul 2 Tim. I. 13 14. Hold fast the form of wholesom words which thou hast heard of mee in faith and love which is through Christ Jesus Keep that good
them hee is fain to argue very hard that their women ought their men ought not to be vailed at divine Service Concluding that if his reasons would not prevail the contentious must rest in this That wee have no such custome neither the Churches of God Why so if particular Churches be not tied to keep unity with the whole And by and by proposing another disorder in that they received not the Eucharist in commune poore and rich hee reproveth it as contrary to that which hee had delivered to them from the beginning Concluding that The rest will I set in order when I come So 2 Thess II. 25. Stand therefore brethren and hold fast the Traditions which yee have been taught either by word of mouth or by any letter of ours Neither can it be imagined that all Christians should be bound to heare the Apostles and not be bound to hold those things for Lawes to their conversation in maters of Religion which the Apostles should teach them to that purpose Of this nature is the decree at Jerusalem Acts XV. 20 28. that the then Churches of the Gentiles should abstain from things strangled and bloud as well as from fornication and the pollution of Idols For what is the ground or the purpose of it but to preserve them in unity with the Churches of Jews become Christians Of this nature is that blessing or Thanksgiving mentioned by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. 1 Tim. II. 1. being as I have showed in a Discourse of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church pag. 350-370 a form of Prayer or Thanksgiving delivered in substance by the Apostles for which the Sacrament of our Lords Supper hath been alwaies called the Eucharist because it is to be celebrated with it Of the same nature is tha order which S. James gives of praying for the sick anointing them with oile aswell for the forgivenesse of their sins as for the recovery of their bodily health James V. 14 15. Which I suppose no man will deny that it concernes all Churches alike If there be this evidence in the Scriptures for the beginnings of Church Law the practice of the Church from this beginning will afford much more Hee that would deny the Tradition of the Rule of Faith what will hee say to the Creed of the Apostles Not that I would have the words and syllables of it to containe whatsoever it is necessary for the salvation of a Christian to believe But because the Creed is not the words of the Creed but the sense and meaning of them together with that coherence and dependence of the parts thereof one upon and with another which the reasons and grounds of them inforce But first let it be understood that I make a difference between the Rule of Faith and the substance of Christianity Supposing Christianity to consist partly in mater of Faith partly in mater of maners Partly in things to be believed partly in things to be done though the Creed extend onely to mater of Faith There is nothing more evident in the practice of the whole Church before the world had admitted the profession of Christianity than this That there was a time allowed and required by the Church for those that professed themselves converted to believe the truth of Christianity to give trial of their conversation before they were admitted to Baptisme The Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 32. name three years but with this limitation that if any man demonstrate extraordinary zele to Christianity hee be received without so long trial Therefore if Clemens Alexandrinus require five it makes no difference For what marvail if several Churches at several times had several customes when as upon extraordinary occasions they were dispensable The Constitutions require extraordinary trial of those that had practised any sort of Magick judging by the experience of the times that it was hard to part with such superstitions It is enough for my purpose that during this time they might learn to behave themselves as Christians by conversing among Christians by coming to Church and bearing a part in the praises of God and hearing the Scriptures read and expounded And what is more notorious in the practice of the ancient Church than the difference between Missa Catechumenorum and Missa Fidelium Between that part of the Office of the Church which Pretenders to Christianity were admitted to or Hearers that is Scholars and Learners of it and that which was peculiar to Believers that is those that were Baptized and made Christians It is the designe of Clemens Alexandrinus his Paedagogus to show how the Word whether our Lord Christ or his Gospel is the Pedagogue of mankinde in bringing them to be Christians Not as wee mistake that word to signifie the Master of a School but as the fashion was then for men of quality to appoint a sonne a Governor to conduct him to School and home againe to attend on him at his exercises and upon all occasions to put him in minde how it might become him to behave himself and to report to his Father if hee proved untractable Thus hee maketh Pretenders to Christianity to be conducted by our Lord Christ and his Gospel in the conversation of Christians till they come to demand their Baptisme of the Church As it is manifest by the end of the Book where this Governor conducting his charge to the Church gives him up into his own hands so hee saith expresly as no more Governor of children but Master of men in the School of his Church Supposing then the point of maners and godly life to be part of the substance of Christianity it is evident that the Church alwaies acknowledged a certain Rule of Faith in that those who were thus prepared were alwaies taught their Creed that is required to repete it and heare it expounded by those whom the Church trusted for that purpose It is not my intent here to insist that the words of the Creed were delivered by the Apostles themselves or that the Rule of Baptisme delivered by our Lord in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not a sufficient Symbole or cognizance for a Christian For what is there necessary to the salvation of all Christians that is not contained in the profession of him that desires to be baptized into this Faith But it is enough for my present purpose that it was alwaies requisite that whosoever is baptized should be instructed upon what termes hee is to expect to be saved by Christ and that which all were required to professe for that purpose to be the Rule of Faith For whether it may appeare that this or that is of that nature must come to trial though the question be only of the sense of the Creed supposing that the very words were delivered by the Apostles themselves For example It is not possible to render a reason of the coming of Christ not mentioning the fall of Adam nor of that not
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
who fall away in time of persecution are not to expect to be restored by Penance makes their Excommunication without release which therefore hee granteth may be released ù on repentance in the case of other sins To which purpose the Apostle 1 John V. 16 17. If a man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask and hee shall give him life To such as sin not to death There is a sin to death I say not that yee pray for it All unrighteousnesse is sin but there is a sin not to death The meaning of these Scriptures I have argued and cleared more at large in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State pag. 17-40 by such reasons as have not been disputed by those that have questioned this power of the Church since the publishing of it But I will remember in this place that which I have also pleaded there pag. 13-16 that all this power is grounded upon the power of baptizing to forgivenesse of sins because of the evidence lately produced for the interrogatories of baptisme and the profession of Christianity which the Church did injoyn and all that were baptized undergo The promise of everlasting life in the world to come and the gift of the Holy Ghost inabling to performe so great an undertaking depending upon it according to such termes as the preaching of the Gospel importeth For if the Church be trusted by God first to induce men to believe Christianity then to instruct them wherein it consisteth is it not properly said to forgive the sins of them who upon that instruction undertake that profession with a good conscience and a heart unfained which God requireth of those that seek his promises And this is the ground of that which is there argued that the power of the Keyes is first seen in granting baptisme though not in ministering of it other acts of the same power depending upon this I will not here omit S. Cyprian Ep. LXXIII Manifestum autem est ubi per quos remissa peccatorum detur quae in baptismo scilicet datur Nam Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificaviâ— Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem dedit ut id solvereâ—ur in coelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hae cum dixisset inspiravit ait eis Accipite Sp. Sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi Si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Vnde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesia praepositis in Evangelicâ Lege ac dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Foris autem nec ligari posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ant ligare possit aut solvere Here it is plain that the Keyes of the Church and the power of remitting sins is exercised in baptizing according to S. Cyprian For thus hee writeth Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sins is given which forsooth is given in baptisme For first our Lord gave power to Peter upon whom hee built his Church and in whom hee settled and declared the original of Unity that it should be loosed in heaven which hee should loose on earth And after his resurrection hee speaketh also to his Apostles saying As my Father sent mee so I also send you And having said so hee breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins yee remit they shall be remitted whose sins yee retain they shall be retained Whence wee understand that it is not lawfull but for those that are set over the Church and founded upon the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sins But that without nothing can be either bound or loosed where there is no body that can either binde or loose This is then the ground of Excommunicating out of the Church The profession of Christianity is as necessary to obtain the promises of the Gospel at Gods hands as baptisme at the Churches The Church is trusted to allow or to refuse the profession tendered and accordingly to receive into the Church or exclude out of it And shall not hee that transgresses the profession of a Christian as visibly as hee made it which not onely Hereticks and Schismaticks but Adulterers Murtherers Apostates and the like do shall hee not forfeit the communion of the Church which hee attained by it Adde hereunto the consideration of that which I observed afore out of the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 32. specifying what professions and trades of life there were which then were refused Baptisme unlesse they would professe to leave them as inconsistent with Christianity For example all that lived by the Stewes by the Stage by the Games and by the Races of the Pagans all Soothsayers Diviners and Fortune-tellers all that kept Concubines and refused to conforme themselves For let no man think this book the onely witnesse of this truth You have it in many other writers of the Church But especially in S. Austines book de Fide Operibus The subject whereof concernes those who having put away wives or husbands and married others were refused Baptisme for it This some plain Christians marvelled at and thought it reason that all should be baptized that would then taught their duty Which whoso regarded not might neverthelesse as they thought be saved so as through firâ— according to S. Paul And this is that which S. Austine disputes from the beginning to the XIV Chapter of that book that no man is to be baptized till hee undertake to live like a Christian marvailing afterwards cap. XVIII where those Christians had lived and spent their time who seeing every day before their eyes Whores Players Fencers Panders and the like refused Baptism found it strange that those adulteries which Christianity no lesse condemned never to inherit the kingdome of heaven should not be admitted into the Church without a promise to leave them for the future Certainly if the Church have power not to admit those who undertake not this then is the power of excluding those who undertake it and perform it not well grounded I shall not repeat here the reasons that I have elswhere to show that Penance and by consequence Excommunication is to be counted in the number of Traditions introduced with the force of Lawes into the Church by the Aposâ—les It is enough that they remaine intire I confesse they inferre an opinion thâ—â— is not so common That under the Apostles some sins of the deepest dye were not admitted to Penance nor to regain the Communion of the Church by the same But referred to the mercy of God whereof it was not alwaies thought fit that the Church should become surety or warrant And this brings in an interpretation of some very difficult texts of Scripture which is not received
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
corrupted the truth As Paul also saith A man that is an Heretick after one reproof and a second avoid Knowing that such a one is perverted condemned by himself Where you see it is not I but Irenaeus that expoundeth those words of S. Paul to this purpose The same Irenaeus III. 4. Cerdon autem qui ante Marcionem hic sub Hygino qui fuit octavus Episcopus saepe in Ecclesiam veniens exomologesim faciens sic consummavit Modò quidem latenter docens modò verò exomologesim faciens modò verò ab aliquibus traductus in his quae docebat malè abstentus est religiosorum hominum conventu But this same Cerdon also that was before Marcion under Hyginus who was the eight Bishop many times addressing to the Church and confessing ended accordingly Sometimes covertly teaching his Heresie sometimes confessing And sometimes being detected by some in those bad things which hee taught was excluded the assembly of the Religious Tertullian de praescript cap. XXX informes us that Marcion though hee was at the first refused Penance by the Church of Rome as I shall show you out of Epiphanius yet afterwards was cast out of the Church there which supposeth him admitted afore with Valentinus the Father of another Heresie and having been received once again at the last for good and all For having obtained to be re-admitted upon this condition that hee should reduce with himself all that hee had seduced at length hee died before hee was able to accomplish the same These things coming to passe so soon after the Apostles as they did and the same course being held in separating those Heresies from the Church which sprung up in their several ages afterwards there is no room left for any pretense that the Church never had power to do that which there never was any time that shee did not do For it is to be noted that these Heads of Heresies being condemned and cast out of the Church in which they first appeared and which they attempted to divide were thenceforth disowned by all Churches being certified of the proceeding that had passed against them upon the place And therefore Vincentius Lerinensis Commentario I. expounding S. Pauls words Gal. I. 8 9. Let him be Anathema Anathema sit inquit id est separatui exclusus nè unius ovis dirum contagium innoxium gregem Christi venenatâ permistione contaminet That is saith hee let him be separated set aside shut out least the direfull contagion of one sheep with any mixture of poison stain the innocent flock of Christ And again afterwards handling the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. VI. 20. Keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane novelties of words What is it to avoid With such one not so much as to eat What is avoid If any come to you saith hee and bringeth not this doctrine receive him not home nor bid him God speed Where you see these are none of my collections gathered out of the Apostles words but that exposition of them which the practice of the Catholick Church inferreth 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 Novations 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 THis is indeed the true demonstration and evidence from the effect that the will of God and not the consent of men is the ground upon which the Corporation of the Church subsisteth The whole number of Christians dispersed over all the Empire and beyond the bounds of it continued for divers hundred years in one communion and in the unity of one Church Those that indeavoured to alter the Rule of Faith or to impose such Lawes as were found by the greatest part not to stand with the end for which the Church was founded being by the consent of the whole excluded the communion of it for Hereticks and Schismaticks Hee that sayes this was not the work of God or the means of effecting it none of his declared will why should not hee say the like of Christianity Indeed since the Council of Ephesus the Churches of Mesopotamia and Assyria are fallen from the Unity of the whole since the Council of Chalcedon those of Aegypt and Aethiopia Since that the Eastern Churches under the Patriarch of Constantinople have been divided from the Western under the Pope of Rome And these from one another into so many parties since the Reformation that wee are now come to dispute whether they ought to be united or not That ever they will be is so hopelesse that no man would undertake to dispute that they should be were it possible to preserve that little of Christianity that remaines without re-uniting the Church I allege here the most eminent passages that fell out in the Church from the Apostles to Constantine to show that it is a question whether the evidence be more That by Gods appointment there was from the beginning and ought to be alwaies one Catholick Church Or the hope lesse that ever it will be so again I cannot begin with a better evidence than that of Irenaeus because it containes the effect of the aforesaid ordinances of the Apostles for the separating of the Heresies set on foot by Simon Magus and Cerinthus from the Communion of the Church that the Unity thereof might be preserved by remaining distinct from them Wee understand by reading his first book that Basilides at Alexandria Saturninus at Antiochia Valentinus first in Aegypt then in Cyprus afterwards at Rome Cerintbus in Asia and elsewhere others in several parts of the World indeavored to adulterate that Christianity which the Apostles had delivered That they were so unanimously rejected and excluded out of the society of the Church from East to West that hee is able to affirm I. 3. that though dispersed all over the world yet it preserves the doctrine once preached as if it dwelt all in one house believing the same faith as if it had the same soul and heart and preaching and teaching the same as if it had but one mouth And can common sense imagine that the remotest parts of the world could remaine united to one another separated from Heresies sprung in the remotest parts of it which they could not have intelligence of but by communication of it with those parts of it where they sprung without that continual correspondence wherein the actual communion of the Church consisteth But the words of Irenaeus are so vigorous that I cannot leave them out here as they stand in his original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Unity therefore of the Church was visible Otherwise it had been senslesse for Irenaeus to assume it as an evidence of the truth of that Faith the unity whereof became visible by the
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
Thus S. Paul calleth Gaius his host and of the whole Church Rom. XVI 23. signifying that as hee intertained him S. Paul so hee was ready to intertaine any Christian as a Christian And addeth to that Epistle a recommendation whereby Phaebe might be acknowledged and received as a Deaconesse of the Church at Cenchreae Rom. XVI 1. Whereas otherwise leter◠were written expresse to that purpose which S. Paul himself calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or commendatory 2 Cor. III. 1. The termes in which S. Paul recommends Phabe are these That yee receive her in the Lord as it becometh the Saints and stand by her in any businesse where shee may stand in need For shee also hath stood by many and by mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was strangers patrone For at Athens a stranger that came to live there could not act for himself but by his patrone The same S. Paul thus chargeth Titus III. 22. Send away Zenas the Lawyer and Apollos with care that they want nothing That is put money in their purse as their journey shall require As the Aegyptians sent away the Israelites with care when they furnished them with all that they demanded Wisedome XIX 2. But the passage of S. Johns Epistle III. 5-10 is very remarkable You saw how in his second Epistle hee forbids them so much as to salute Hereticks much lesse to intertaine them or any that should not bring with him the true Faith That is a cognisance that they professed it Here hee commends Gaius for assisting some Christian strangers that travailed for the name of Christ that is upon the businesse of the Church taking nothing of the Gentiles because themselves were Jewes turned Christians These hee saith had born witnesse to Gaius his love before the Church by writing leters to acquaint the Church from whence they came with their intertainment Wishing him so to dispatch them as may be fitting towards God because by so doing a man assists the truth And whereas Diotrephes had prevailed with the Church not to receive them and did labor particular men to that purpose upon pretense it seemes of some strangenesse between the Jewes and Gentiles that were turned Christians forbids him to be ruled by his factiousnesse Wee heare S. Paul in the end of his Epistles relate the saluations of the brethren that is of the Church from whence hee dates and also of particular persons eminent there to the Body of the Church hee writes to What ground had there been for this intercourse had not the Apostle taught them that they were all of one Body and so ought to preserve themselves How often do they charge them to salute one another with a holy kisse or the kisse of love Rom. XVI 16. 2 Cor. XIII 12. 1 Thess V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 14. which the Constitutions of the Apostles showes was done before the Consecration of the Eucharist to signifie the love of one another in Christ and for Christ wherewith they professed to rceive the same Though Origen upon Rom. XVI sayes it came after Prayer And Tertullian therefore calls it signaculum orationis de Orat. XIV the seal of prayer To wit of that prayer which the Eucharist was celebrated with Therefore chose salutations joyned with the charge of saluting one another in token of this love signifie no lesse than the expression of the same love from forrain Churches which they professed among themselves in the communion of the same mysteries That is that they who absent thus saluted them did no less communicate with them in the same Sacrament than they did with one another who saw one another communicate with one another face to face This is then that communication of peace that title of brotherhood that recognisance of the marks of hospitality which Tertullian allegeth for the means whereby all Churches make one Church the same with that primitive and original Church which was first founded by the Apostles The unity whereof being grounded upon the same Faith delivered and received at the Sacrament of Baptisme is able to make evidence of the same Faith Do not all the records of the Church from the Apostles time justifie the same visible communion in Christianity by the same intercourse and communion of counsailes and businesse which were trouble to no purpose were not the intent of it to maintain the Unity of the Church Look upon the Epistles of Ignatius and observe in them two things for the present purpose The first that Ignatius being carried in bands from Rome to Antiochia the Churches by which hee passed not onely those hee writes his Epistles to but divers others send deputations of the principal persons among them to conferre with him about their present estate Which are the occasions of the leters hee directs to them The second that hee desires them to depute and ordaine certain persons to go to Antiochia to his Church there to congratulate with them that since hee was taken from them they were returned from persecution into their wonted body The preservation whereof I suppose every man will imagine this conference advice and comfort of so many Churches was the means to advance The same is to be seen by that of Clemens or rather of the Church of Rome in whose name hee writes it to the Church of Corinth divided within it self into factions to reduce them to peace and unity For I suppose the premises will show the reason that must oblige the parties to respect the advice of the Church of Rome To wit the obligation of communicating with the whole Church Seeing reason requires that the party which should refuse to return to unity must be refused the communion of the Church of Rome and those Churches by consequence that should adhere to it Look now upon S. Cyprians leters look upon the leters of Dionysius of Alexandria out of which for the greatest part Eusebius hath compiled the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical Histories look upon the rest of the intercourse by which the unity and communion of the Church was maintained distinct from all Heresies and Schisms from the Apostles time till Constantine and let mee know what probable reason can be assigned to move forrain Churches to give that respect to strafigers which was effectual to the purpose intended had not all sides been perswaded that this was the end with the Apostles after our Lord had ordained this the meanes to procure it Take for an instance the leter of tha Synod at Antiochia about Paulus Samosatenus in the place afore quoted There showing that having deposed him they had made a new Bishop in his stead they write further 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This wee have given you notice of that you may write to him and receive from him communicatory leters But let him that is deposed write to Artemon and let them of Artemons sect communicate with him These leters then were a mark and cognisance that they acknowledged him
that was ordained true Bishop of Antiochia And the sending of them from the Bishops of Italy and Rome the Emperor Aurelian maketh the condition upon which the decree of the Synod was to be executed by secular force In like maner Optatus lib. II. having brought down his Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome to Damasus Damaso Syricius hodie saith hee cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio Formatarum in unâ commuuionis societate concordat To Damasus succeeds this day Syricious with whom the whole world together agreeth with us in one fellowship of communion by the intercourse of leters of mark These leters of mark which wee speak of concerned not onely the publick businesse of Churches but were usually given to private Christians whether of the Clergy or people that when they travailed into forrain Countries they might certifie of what rank rhey were at home and to be received and communicate accordingly whatsoever Church they came to all over the world A thing so manifest by all records of the Church that it were injury for the Reader to go about to evidence it I said nothing afore in order of time concerning the sect of the Dohatists The reason was because they broke out of the Unity of the Church upon that quarrel which had been debated before in S. Cyprians time concerning the baptizing of Hereticks and by the Christian moderation of that time had been appeased without dissolving the Unity of the Church But I showed you before that S. Augustines refutation of them proceeds very much upon supposition of that Unity of the Church which wee are now put to prove Neither said I any thing of the Schisme of Meletius in Aegypt because it proceeded upon the same ground with that of the Novatians that those who had fallen away in the persecution of Diocletian ought not to be re-admitted to communion with the Church again But hee that shall consider the decree of the Council of Nicaea for the uniting of them to the Church again shall finde that they held themselves obliged to abate of their right to regain the Unity of the Church So farre they were from imagining that God had not commanded it For to incourage them to return they allowed those who had been ordained under Meletius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the title rank and ministery competent to their respective orders and to succeed into the places as those that should die In the mean time not to act in Ordinations of those of the Clergy should do This you have in Theodoret and Socrates Eccl. Hist I. 9. in Sozomenus I. 24. And thus I conceive I have demonstrated the Unity of the Church by the same reasons for which wee hold our Christianity That is by the Scriptures interpreted by the consent of all Christians Having showed by the proceedings in the Arian persecutions under Constantius and Valens that this Union was of force to defeat all the designes of those Apostates who having the power of the Empire on their side sought the way to introduce their own Faith For what appearance is there that succeeding Emperors should not acknowledge that which had preserved their Faith in despite of their predecessors Or that Constantine from the beginning of his Christianity did not acknowledge the Church in that quality which manifestly defeated the deâ—â—gnes of his successors to poison Christianity But the Lawes of the Empire are extant and so are the Lawes of most of those Soveraignties into which the Empire stands divided and I shall have occasion to say something of them in the processe of my discourse where I shall finde something objected for mee to dissolve Which when I have answered then shall I make account to have completely demonstrated my purpose In the mean time I desire those that have seen what hath been alleged for and against the Infallibility of the Church to tell mee whether ever they found it alleged that there never was any such thing as the Church in the nature of a Corporation of Gods founding Which had it been the ground of Reformation as now Erastians and Independents are founded upon it there had been no such barre to all pretense of Infallibility in the Church as to say that there is no such thing as a Church in the quality of a Corporation that is with power in some to oblige the whole On the other side having demonstrated that all things necessary to the salvation of Christians are not clear in the Scriptures to all whom they concern I have also showed how necessary it was that the Corporation of the Church should be provided as well to preserve that Faith upon the profession whereof I have showed it was founded as to maintaine that service of God in unity which is the end for which it subsisteth CHAP. XI Vpon 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 Leviathaâ— saith in general concerning the Power of the Church Both suppose that Ecclesiastical Power includeth Temporal which is not true Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis TO much of this great opposition is made by the first and second book de Synedriis Judâ—orum and the Author of the Leviathan The first pretending to maintain the position of Erastus that ExcoÌ„munication may be a temporal punishment if secular Powers think fit to use it but that the Church hath nothing to do to exclude from the communion of the Eucharist those who professing Christianity live not according to it To this purpose hee produces all the evidence that can be made to show that under the Law of Nature as Ecclesiastical Writers call it that is from the beginning of the world to the Law of Moses there was no precept no practice of Excommunication for the Jewes under the Law to receive it from thence No precept of the Law upon which it can be thought to have been established by divine Right so as to take place under the Gospel upon that Title Here hee showes at large That when the precept of Circumcision is inacted by this sanction That the male childe which shall not be circumcised on the eight day shall be cut off from his people When many precepts of Moses Law have this penalty of being cut off annexed to the transgression of them the intent is not that they shall be excommunicate But that their lives shall be forfeited to Gods vengeance in case hee please to exercise it Inferring that when the Soveraign Power was taken away from that people in their captivity and dispersions being neverthelesse privileged to live by their own Lawes By their own consent they submitted to this penalty as the means to inforce the sentences of their own Governors by whom their Lawes were dispensed This being that Excommunication whereof wee have remembrance in Esdras and in the Gospels As it appears by the original
to have been a meer humane Law so did it no way concern the service of God which the Excommunicate among the Jewes were not excluded from by it But was a meer civil punishment tending to change and abate the estate and condition of him that was under it in his freedom and intercourse with his own peole By all this hee seemes to fortifie the argument which Erastus had made showing that there is no such thing as Excommunication commanded or established by that Law and therefore that there is no such power in the Church But further seeing that there was no other company of men extant in the world for the Apostles to understand by the name of the Church when our Lord commanded him that was offended among his Disciples Tell it to the Church Mat. XVIII 16-20 hee insists strongly that neither the Church of Christ nor any Consistory or Assembly of men or particular person claiming or acting in behalf and under the title of the Church can be understood by those words of our Lord But that the name of the Church must necessarily signifie the Body of Jewes as well as Christians as unbelievers or that Consistory which was able to act in behalf of them in their respective times and places such as wee must also understand the witnesses there mentioned to be For it is manifest that at the beginning of Christianity onely Jewes were admitted to be Christians in so much that the dispute was hot about Cornelius and his company Acts XI 1. being no Jewes in Religion but yet such as believed in the true God and had renounced the worship of Idols Whereby it seemes the command of our Lord to baptize all Nations Mat. XXVIII 19. was then understood to concern onely those of all Nations that had made themselves Jewes by being circumcised afore Accordingly wee see that by virtue of Claudius his Edict commanding all Jewes to depart from Rome Aquila and Priscilla being Christians came to Corinth Acts XVIII 2. to show that Christians at that time must needs use the Jewes fashions who were therefore reputed Jewes by the Law of the Romanes and injoyed the benefit of their Religion by the Jewes privileges granted or confirmed by the same Claudius in Josephus Antiq XIX 4. Whereupon it seems necessarily to follow that the Excommunication then in force was that which the Jewes had introduced by humane Law confirmed by the Law of the Empire Though it is to be thought that the Christians upon particular agreement among themselves such as wee finde they had by Pliny Epist X. 97. Tertul. Apolog. cap. II. Euseb Hist Eccles III. 33. S. Hierome Chron. 2123. Orig. contr Celsum I. pag. 4. had limited the use of it to such causes and termes as their profession required Therefore when our Lord in the next words commands that hee which will not heare the Church be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane As it is manifest that hee gives the Church no power but onely prescribes what hee would have the party offended to do So neither Heathen nor Publicane being in the condition of an excommunicate person among the Jewes how can it be understood that our Lord would have him to be excommunicate whom hee commands to be held as a Heathen man or as a Publicane The effect then of this precept of our Lord will consist in limiting the precept of the Law Levit. XIX 17. to the publishing of those offenses between parties the private complaint whereof should be neglected So that if the opinion of Gods people should be no more esteemed by the osfeuder the party offended freely to return his scorn by avoiding his familiarity as Jewes were wont to avoid the familiarity of Heathen men and Publicanes Now when our Lord adds in the next words Whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven The sense must either be general to signifie the obligation of all Law and the right and Power which one man may have by the act of his will to tye and limit another mans Or particular to the Law of Moses Whereby what was declared unlawfull by the Doctors and Professors of it was said in their language to be held or bound that which was permitted loose Which signification our Lord also uses Mat. XXIII 4. Luc. XI 46. This later sense concerning things and not persons will be farre from signifying that any man should be excommunicate And though Excommunication be a bond and was so among the Jewes yet how should wee understand that the Church is inabled to tye this bond by a commission the termes whereof containe all that superiors may do to oblige their inferiors This Author then acknowledges that S. Paul threatens Excommunication Gal. I. 8 9. 1 Cor. XVI 22. and that hee wishes himself that estate which it imports Rom. IX 3. Not as it hath been falsly imagined among Christians to be cut off from the communion of the Eucharist and other offices of Christianity But as it was used among the Jewes to inferre the abridgment of a mans freedome in publick conversation as vile and subject to the curses of the Church But when the same Apostle gives order that the incestuous person be delivered to Satan 1 Cor. V. 5. As also when hee saith that hee had delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus 1 Tim. I. 20. when hee ordereth them not to converse with such persons 1 Cor. V. 11. this hee takes no more to concerne Excommunication than those verses of the Psalms Blessed is the man that bath not walked in the counsail of the ungodly Or I have not sate with vain persons nor will have fellowship with the deceitfull That is to say that it is bad counsail towards God but neither ground nor signe of any commission to excommunicate in the body of the Church Whereas the Leviathan to show here out of order his sense of that place though hee acknowledge that both ancient and modern writers have understood it as if by the extraordinary graces which the Apostles then had to evidence the presence of God in his Church the excommunicate became subject to plagues and diseases inflicted by evil Angels to show that they came under the power of Satan when they were put out of the Church yet hee satisfies himself by saying that other learned men finde nothing like the excommunication of Christians in it pag. 209. and that it depended upon the singular privilege of the Apostles These are the grounds upon which the power of the Keyes and by consequence the charter and corporation of the Church and all Ecclesiastical right and power grounded thereupon are taken away in the first book de Synedriis to the same effect as in Erastus his positions But the Leviathan comes up close to the point in general and following the supposition which I have refuted That the Gospel or Christianity and the Scriptures that contain it are not Law till the secular Power that
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
sufficiently demonstrated that they grant the Church no Title to any part of the Power it challengeth but their own grant thinking fit to execute their will in Church maters by Church men no otherwise than they execute their will in military maters by souldiers in maters of publick or private right by Judges and Lawyers As you may see at large in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. By which it may appear that I do this Author no wrong when I inferre That the Church is no Corporation nor hath any Power but from the State according to his opinion because it hath no Power to excommunicate For if those diâ—ferences of persons whereby some are qualified to act in behalf of the Church are grounded originally upon the act and will of the State imploying them to that purpose then can no act that they do be referred to any Power estated upon the Corporation of the Church founded by God upon any charter of divine right Now it is well enough known that there is such an opinion maintained in the Church of Rome And it is manifest to him that shall peruse what hath passed in the Scottish Presbyteries that the effect of the same position hath been practised by them when the ground of it hath been disclaimed which is to my judgment the more dishonest course of the two But it mvst be acknowledged because it cannot with truth or sincerity be either denied or dissembled that there are very many of that Church that think otherwise and think that the Church allows them so to think and to professe And it is reported with likelyhood enough that Cardinal Bellarmine himself though then a Jesuite and imployed to dispute all Controversies upon the highest termes that are tenable was not of his own choice willing to have maintained it had hee not writ under an Imperious Pope Sextus V that refuted passeport to his books de Romano Pontifice till hee had added the fift concerning this point Which what contradiction it hath found from those of his own profession ought to be notorious to all that give a judgment in this point and would not judge of they know not what It is therefore manifest that there are enough of those that believe the Church to be by the Charter of God a Society Corporation or visible Body And yet by this Charter not protected by the power of the Sword but exposed to be persecuted by the same That is to say called by God to the profession of Christianity part whereof is to believe the Catholick Church and by consequence to be a member of it but to maintain this profession not by force but by suffering rather than renounce it Thereupon it follows that by the original institution of the Church to be excommunicate inferres no manner of losse in this world unless it be to the Church that excoÌ„municates as the Leviathan very truly and pertinently observes pag. 276 In as much as by being excommunicate a man may be moved to seek a course of revenge upon the Church that did it And yet neverthelesse upon supposition of Christianity it may well be counted the punishment of not performing that Christianity which a man professeth For hee that does not believe Christianity to be true or submits not to it cannot think it any penalty for himself to be shut out of the Church But hee that professeth Christianity and liveth not according to it though the penalty which hee incurres by transgressing that profession is already incurred in respect of God yet hoping that God will not take the forfeiture which hee may take may count his Excommunication as indeed it is the losse of the meanes of salvation which the communion of the Church importeth If then it be demanded whether the Church by the original Charter of God have power to constrain men by punishment to obedience The answer is that absolutely it hath not but upon supposition it hath For to him that thinks the Communion of the Church no gain ExcoÌ„munication is no punishment And therefore no censure tending to Excommunication which is the utmost constraint that the Church can use But to him that believes the Communion of the Church to be the means that God hath ordained for the salvation of particular Christians as the losse of it is necessarily a punishment so is the expectation of that losse a constraint to imbrace the condition of retaining it But as this constraint depends not upon outward force but upon a perswasion of the minde which goes afore So doth it not originally inforce any punishment of this world but onely upon supposition of privileges granted by secular Powers to the profession of it or penalties upon not professing it Which being accessory to the original constitution of the Church because all the world knowes that from our Lord to Constantine there were no such privileges or penalties it is manifest to all understandings that hee who pretendeth the Church to be a Society or Visible Body by Gods appointment is not obliged to grant that it is indowed with any temporal Power of this world to constrain those who are of it by outward force because hee pretends that it hath Power to refuse the communion of those offices which God is to be served with by Christians to those that performe not their Christianity Which it granteth to those who undertake it As therefore whatsoever is a condition of obtaining salvation under Christianity is Gods Law so whatsoever by virtue of Gods Law is a just condition of obtaining or holding Communion with the Church that is a Law of the Church supposing the Church to be a visible Society of Christians by Gods appointment though wee grant not that the losse of this Communion imports any change in the worldy quality of any man by the original constitution of the Church as it was founded by our Lord and his Apostles but by the privileges necessarily accruing to it when the Powers of the world professing Christianity undertake the protection of it But having named these two Authors for my adverse parties in this dispute I am obliged to take notice of the Oxford Doctors late Paraenesis ad aedificatores Imperii in Imperio published since the penning of this For the whole book proceeds upon the same oversight which the other two have made and the very Title of it contains I demand of any man in his right senses whether hee can be said to build the Church into an Empire within that Empire or Soveraignty which maintains it that challenges no maner of temporal effect for that Excommunication which is the utmost means the Church hath to inforce the sentence of it They that oblige Subjects to depose their Soveraignes if the Pope excommunicate them I confesse make both Soveraignes and Subjects the Popes Vassals them to rule and these to obey at the discretion of him that can excommunicate them if they do not That the Scottish Presbyterians have done the like it were easie to
show were it worth the while as also from whence they took their rise to do it And if he please to step over the water again into France I can show him a more lively picture of an Empire erected within an Empire when the Reformed Churches their had there Civil Assemblies to order the businesse which should arise upon the privileges which they had purchased by their arms for the maintaining of their Religion by force Whether by right or by wrong I say not here But this is the thing which hee calleth Imperium in Imperio the Popes temporal Power making him rather Soveraign above than within other Soveraignties But I have showed you already that this opinion never was the Faith of the Catholick Church but the position of the Papal Faction disclaimed at this day by the farre greater part of that communion though the contrary being countenanced the more make the greater appearance For my own opinion I have delivered it so clear in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State that these Authors might if they pleased to oversee all other Divines that deliver the same by that alone have seen what they had to refute And truly I do not believe that any of them can allege a more convicting reason against those that build a Soveraignty within a Soveraignty upon the Title of the Church than that which there is alleged from the Unity of the Church prophesied of in all the promises of the calling of the Gentiles which the constitution of one visible Church of all Christians fulfilleth For if the Church of several Soveraignties is to be one and the same Body by communicating in the Service of God upon supposition of the same Faith then cannot the foundation of it create any title of temporal right to the prejudice and disturbance of those Soveraignties from whence all force within their respective territories is derived If it be said that the supposition is impossible to wit that the Church should have power to Ordain Excommunicate decree and yet be indowed with no force to constrain those that are obliged to stand to the acts thereof The reason now alleged to the contrary is evident For if the obligation of the inward man be of force to resolve a Christian to part with his life to maintain the profession of it If it be part of that obligation which Christianity createth to hold communion with Gods Church is not this obligation enough to inforce the acts of the Church and that excommunication which inforces the same And for experience from the effect it is but alleging the subsistence of the Church till the time that Gregory II and III Popes withdrew their obedience and the obedience of those parts of Italy that followed them from the Emperor Leo Isaunus upon pretense of his erring in the Faith in putting down Images For that is the first example which Christendom hath brought forth of temporal freedom from allegiance due to the Soveraigne founded upon the Title of Christianity If yet it be evident that this was the case in which I see there is some difficulty made But before this time it can neither be said that the Church was not the same after Constantine as before nor that the power of it ever produced any rebellion against the Soveraign upon this Title more than when the Martyrs suffered for their Christianity without defending themselves by force And therefore when this Doctor for the ground of his opinion as visible to his imagination as the common notions in Euclide alleges that all Power all Jurisdiction all Lawes all Punishment all Government all Appeales all Councils are derived first and do lastly resort to the Secular Power no lesse in Ecclesiastical than in Secular Causes and concerning Ecclesiastical as well as Secular Persons because all force which constrains obedience is vested in it his imagination is meerly imbroyled with equivocation of words For all Power is nothing else but a moral quality consisting in the right of obliging other mens wills those in respect of whom the Power holds by the act of his or their wills that have it And what shall hinder God to create such an obligation upon the consciences of Christians by virtue of their Christianity not allowing them any force to inact it but the denial of the communion of the Church Whether the Rules of the Church be called Laws or Canons hee that is tied to hold communion with the Church is tyed to observe those Rules by which it subsists and if hee do not deserves to be set aside rather than the Unity thereof perish Whether yee call them Magistrates or Elders that are appointed to govern the Church it maters not if by virtue of Gods Law the obligation of obeying them be evident in the Scriptures Whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not when a Christian is censured to be put out of the Church it shall have the same effect with that Jurisdiction whereby a malefactor is put out of the world according as the correspondence between the Church and the State will bear it How this may be counted punishment how not I will not say again having said it already In all causes and concerning all persons I acknowledge there lies an appeal to the Soveraign the Church having to do onely in Ecclesiastical causes concerning men as they are members of the Church and so accidentally when the Church is as large as the State all acknowledging the same Church the Jurisdiction thereof whether properly so called or not extending to as many as that of the State For the last appeal is one of those Jura Majestatis or Prerogatives wherein Soveraignty consisteth neither is it alienable though it is limitable by those termes which Christianity when it is acknowledged to come from God establisheth On the other side the Power of the Church though never so evidently settled by Christianity may be abused not only when it is extended to some temporal effect but also when it is extended beyond the ground and reason of that Christianity which it presupposeth Instances you have of both in the claimes of temporal Power and Infallibility in behalf of the Church And as there lies an appeal to a Heathen Soveraign professing not to persecute his Subjects for their Christianity but to protect them in it upon pretense that it is extended to a temporal effect so may there by an appeal to a Christian Soveraign upon pretense that it is extended beyond the bounds which Christianity alloweth So the Council of Aâ—tiochia appealed Aurelian because Paulus Samosatenus protected himself in his House belonging to the the Church by power derived from him But hee alloweth them that trial which Christianity settleth So Constantine received the appeal of the Donatists but referred the trial to the Church in a Council at Rome and again another at Arles representing all the West But of the bounds of Secular and Ecclesiastical power I must speak again That the
Ecclesiastical may be from God though limitable by the Secular hitherto this is evidence As for the holding of Councils I mervail to see this Doctor so securely to dream that the calling of them all belongs onely to the State and that it were an usurpation in the Church to hold any but by commission from it For hee is not ignorant how many Synods were held by the Church afore Constantine and that upon the same right as those meetings of the Apostles which I have showed had the power and force of General Councils without asking leave either of Jewes or Romanes Which is enough for the present purpose to infringe the argument made by this Doctor in the former part of his book Not that there is no Church but that there can be none where there is a State Wherein hee out-vieth the first book de Synedriis his Master who having granted that the Excommunications of Christians were taken up by the voluntary consent of Churches hath by consequenâ—e granted that the Church was a Church that is a Corporation before Constantine And therefore I referr the consideration of the time after Constantine till I speak of the bounds of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in Church maters Where it will as easily appear as it is easie to look into any record of the Church that the holding of Synods was a mater of course and Canon and custome allowed indeed by the Empire but constituted and limited by the Church Not because the State might not have forbid them Had they gone beyond the bounds of that right which the constitution of the Church establisheth justly unjustly if they had not So that the power of forbidding to be just the use of it unjust But that the Church was yet unacquainted with the motives of transgressing those bounds and so the State had no just cause to interpose Of General Councils I say not the same Not as if the Church afore Constantine had usurped a right not due had it assembled by representatives in a General Council But whether such assemblies were forborn as mater of more jealousie to the State than either ordinary meetings for the service of God or Synods Or of more charge to the Church It must be acknowledged that the first General Council of Nicaea could not have been assembled without the command as well as the charge of Constantine That other General Councils were never assembled without the concurrence of the chief Powers of Christendome That every Soveraign hath a Power to command the presence of every subject where and when hee shall please And that Constantius when hee constrained the Council of Ariminum to sit against their will to the prejudice of the respective Churches on purpose by this duresse and the opportunities of time to bring them to his will abused his Power indeed but usurped it not For if the constitution of the Church be no ground for any temporal Right then can no quality in the Church exempt any man from the service which as a member of the Common-wealth hee owes his Soveraign But whether they acted by commission from Constantius or by the quality they held in the Church the successe of his designe witnesseth For as I have showed you that without being assembled they had both right obliging them and means inabling them to maintaine the Faith by mutual intelligence and correspondence So being assembled alters nothing in the case saving the opportunity it giveth to imploy their right to that end which their quality pretendeth Their assembling upon his command signifying no trust which they undertook to him prejudicial to that which their quality in the Church importeth Having said this in general to that general Argnment upon which this Doctor pretends to build his opinion I am content to turn my Reader loose to him provided hee be content to consider also that which shall be found requisite to be said when I have done with his two predecessors CHAP. XII That the Law expersly 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 requireth 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 the precepts of the Law the love of our Neighbor onely to Jewes Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law SO much difference as there is between these two or these three opinions and the reasons upon which they proceed it is manifest that the issue and pretense of all is the same That there is no such thing as a Church Understanding by that name a Visible Society or Corporation of all Christian people subsisting or that ought to subsist by a Charter from God one and the same from the first to the second coming of Christ Which therefore remaines distinct from all States and Soveraignties that professe Christianity by the Rights upon which it subsists though the persons of which both consist may be the same if it so fall out that Christianity be professed by all the Soveraign Powers under which there are Christians But that is the reason why I am forced to quote both Authors and Opinions by name which in other points I shall avoid Not onely because I would be as short in this abridgment as my designe will bear But because nothing seemes to mee more odious or further from the profession of a Christian than the affectation of contradicting the opinions of men in repute for Learning which therefore I would have avoided by silencing the names of these had I not found so much difference in the means from which they would inferre the same consequence And truly the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in making the question general that is general indeed and giving that resolution of all the branches of it without which whatsoever is said to some parts of it leaves the whole unresolved while any part so remaines Those that onely dispute the power of Excommunication are neverthelesse to give account what Right the Secular Power can have to appoint the Persons that shall either determine or execute maters of Religion to decide Controversies of Faith to minister the Sacraments which they may do themselves by much better Title than by their Deputies than if they resolved and maintained all this as expresly as the Leviathan hath done It may be indeed hee hath made his resolution more subject to be contradicted by so freely and generously declaring it But whosoever shall undertake the same pretense will stand no lesse obliged to God and to his Church to give account how every part of that Power which as well before as since Constantine hath been exercised by the Church should henceforth be exercised by Secular Powers without prejudice to Christianity before hee go about to void it Though hee give not the truth so much advantage against
truth as to show further how well it agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church by which I had begun to show that wee are to examine all maters of Faith Indeed I must caution this first that I do not pretend as if this point were any part of the Rule of Faith which is the substance of Christianity to be believed but of all points concerning the knowledge of the Scriptures which is the skill of Christian Divines I hold it of most consequence And that therefore though I am not obliged to affirm that it is expresly taught by all the primitive Doctors of the Church as all maintaining the mystical â—ense it may be maintained that by consequence they do all unanimously deliver it Origen in praef de Principiis so accounts it so will it be necessary to show how well it standeth with the sense of them that it may appear that there is no consent of the whole Church against it It shall be therefore sufficient to name S. Jerome S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine the first affirming that hee reades nothing of the kingdom of heaven in all the Old Testament Epist CXXIX Mihi in Evangelio promittuntur regna coelorum quae vetus Instrumentum omnino non nominat To mee the kingdom of heaven is promised by the Gospel which the Old Testament nameth not at all The second in his Homilies de Lazaro and divers others places raising his exhortations drawn from examples of the Saints in the Old Testament upon this ground that if they did so and so when the Resurrection was not preached it behooveth us under the Gospel to do much more The last besides other places whereof some you may finde quoted in my book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church in the book de Gestis Palestinis relating it for one of the Articles which Pelagius renounced at that Synod not onely that the Saints under the Law obtained salvation by it but even that the salvation of the world to come was preached under the Law The Article charged upon Pelagius you shall finde there to be this cap. V. Regnum coelorum etiam in veteri Testamento promissum That the kingdome of heaven was promised also in the Old Testament To which Pelagius answering That this may be proved by the Scriptures was judged by the Council not to depart from the Faith of the Church Which notwithstanding when S. Austine considers That the Old Testament in vulgar Language signifies the books of the Old Testament in which the kingdome of heaven is promised as the Gospel is fore-told But in the Scriptures the Old Covenant in which it is not promised Hee sayes as much as I have done Therefore hee saith further In illo verò Testamento quod Vetus dicitur datâ—m est in monte Sinâ non invenitur apertissime promitti nisi terrena foelicitas But in that which is called the Old Testament and was given in mount Sina none but earthly felicity is found to be very openly promised Whereupon hee proceedeth to observe that the Land of Canaan is called the Land of Promise in which the promises of the Old Testament figuring the spiritual promises belonging to the New are tendred by the Law And reason hee had to insist upon this because of another Article charged upon Pelagius of kin to this that men were saved under the Law as under the Gospel As you may see there cap. XI Which might well be understood to mean without the Grace of Christ But having cleared the ground of the difference between the literal and allegorical sense of the Scriptures of the Old Testament I hold it utterly unnecessary if not altogether impertinent to tender further proof of this position from the Fathers then the constant agreement of them in maintaining that difference Being when it is rightly understood the necessary and immediate consequence of it Indeed it cannot be maintained that they did understand expresly the true ground of this difference which had they done they would not have been found to use it impertinently and unseasonably as all lovers of Truth must avow that many times they do Notwithstanding in as much as they agree in maintaining and using of it from which use the ground of it which is this position is to be inferred it shall be enough that all of them agree in delivering that by consequence which the principal of them at least in expounding the Scriptures do expresly asfirme For nothing obliges mee to maintaine that this is a poiâ—t necessary to the salvation of all Christians to be believed And by consequence that it hath been every where taught and no where contradicted It is sufficient that I can and do hold it more generally necessary to the right understanding of the Scriptures than any other point of skill in the Scriptures Now if any man object that this is the doctrine of the Socinians I answer first That they also hold that nothing is necessary to salvation to be believed but that which is clear to all men in the Scriptures And that this position hath a necessary influence into their whole Heresie which is grounded upon the unreasonable presumption of it On the contrary the difference between the Law and the Gospel is a principle from which I hope to draw good consequences in maintainance of the Faith of the Church against the Socinians who if they did alwaies see the consequence of their owne positions would not deny the Tradition of the Church as I observed afore If they do not I am not to waive the doctrine of the Fathers because the Socinians acknowledge it But lastly I demand whether Socinus provide for the salvation of the Fathers or not If so why is his opinion blamed If not why is mine opinion that do taken for his CHAP. XIV The Leviathans opinâ—on that Christ came to restore that kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Samuel 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 THis position being settled in the next place I will proceed upon it to argue the vanity of that conceit of the Leviathan pag. 263. that the intent of Christs coming was to regaine unto God by a New Covenant that Kingdome which being his by the Old Covenant had been ravished from him by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul For supposing most truly that God became their King by the Covenant of the Law and that under him Moses had the Soveraigne Power to all purposes pag. 250 251 252. hee inferreth further that after Moses it was by God vested in the High Priests Aarons Successors though hee for his time was subject to Moses And this pag. 217. from that text of Exodus XIX 6. where God promiseth them that upon undertaking his Covenant they should be a Sacerdotal Kingdome which in
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
before acknowledges as a Christian that right which Christians acknowledge of holding Land and Goods to be in the Church For when wee reade afore in any records of the Church where the persecution of Diocletian is mentioned as in Eusebius Eccles Hist IX 9. that Churches and Oratories were pulled down and the books of the Scriptures burned were not these Churches and Oratories and Books the common goods of the Church dedicated to the service of God but given the Church for the purpose of it When Constantine writ that famous letter to Eusebius to provide fifty Copies of the Bible was it not to furnish the Churches which hee had erected at Constantinople There is nothing more ancient in the records of the Church than the mention of Titles and Coemiteries belonging to the Church at Rome nor any thing more effectual to convince this intent than the name and condition of the same The maner was at Rome to set marks upon eschetes and confiscations and all other goods belonging to the Exchequer whether moveable or immoveable intimating that the Exchequet claimed them and that no man was to meddle with that Title for so it was called And truly the same was the reason why they set a bodily mark upon souldiers to signifie them to be the Emperors men as private men did on their goods which occasioned the allegory of the character of Baptisme the reason whereof S. Austine by that comparison declares When therefore a piece of ground or a house was given the Church to exercise their Assemblies in the name of Title evidences that a mark was set upon it whether a Crosse as Cardinal Baronius would have it whether visible to the world or onely to those of the Church I dispute not now to distinguish the Churches goods from the goods of private persons And therefore what can be more clear than that the Church had goods In the life of Alexander Severus you have a question about a certain place challenged on one side by the Christians on the other by the Taverners popinariis whom with the like hee had made Corporations as the same Life relateth decreed by him in favor of Christians It will perhaps be said that it is enough to justifie those that have seized the goods of this Church that the Tenth part and those kindes of which it is to be payed are not determined by Gods Law For if it be once granted that the act of man is requisite to designe what hee will please to indow the Church with That the act of Soveraign Power is requisite to make such or such or all kindes Tithable through each State it will be in the Soveraigne Power either to recall its own act or to limit or void the acts of particular persons To this my answer shall be That all this dispute proceeds upon a supposition that the men are Christians to whom it addresseth Seeing then it is a part of Christianity to acknowledge the Church a Corporation founded by God and so capable of rights as well as of goods Whatsoever by any mans voluntary act it stands indowed with as the Church of England is with all Tithes some man may have force no man can have right to take from it But I have showed further that all Christians whether publick or private persons are bound to indow the Church with the First-fruits of their goods Of which First-fruits the Tenth hath been the part most eminently limited under the Lawes of Nature Moses and Christ Therefore the persons whereof a Commonwealth consisteth may be Christians in giving their goods as the necessity of the Church requires but the Commonwealth it self cannot be Christian but by securing such Christian acts from violence Which if it be true so farre must any State be from seizing such goods that the first thought thought should be to restore the breach made upon Christianity by such feizures For the intent of consecrating First-fruits and Oblations whether presently to be spent or to make a standing stock to the maintenance of one Communion and corporation of the Church is evidenced by the same means as our common Christianity That is by the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of Ghristians And therefore supposing Christian States were mistaken in accepting the Obligation of Tithes as from the Levitical Law they were not mistaken either in their duty to indow the Church or in limiting the Tith for the discharge of it suppoâ—ing it necessary that all being become Christians the rate should be limited and that the Tenth whether alone or with other consecrations might serve the turne And therefore there can be no difference between the Churches goods that is Gods and private mens but the difference between mans Law onely and Gods and mans Law both speaking of those Churches upon which mans Law hath once settled that which private or publick devotion hath once consecrated to God For consider that there is neither Kingdome nor State to be named before the Reformation that ever undertook to maintain that Christianity which it professed wherein there hath not been a course taken to settle Goods consecrated to God upon his Church for the maintenance of Gods service that it might not lye at the casuality of Christians behaving themselves as Christians should do whether the service of God should be maintained or not For though while no man was a Christian but hee that had resolved to undergo persecution to death for the profession of Christianity it was not to be doubted that hee who had given himself up to the Church would not stick at giving up his goods so farre as the necessities thereof should require Yet when all the world was come into the Church whether for love of God or of the World that favored the Church what disorder might have insued had not a standing provision been made it is obvious to common reason to imagine Or rather what disorder did insue for want of it it is evident by the provisions of the Civil Law of all Christian Kingdoms and States that proved requistie to prevent it for the future Whether or no the Tenth part were due by virtue of the Levitical Law seeing it appeareth by that which hath been said that from the beginning of Christianity a stock of maintenance was due to the Church out of the First-fruits of Christians goods offered and dedicated to God whereof Tithes were from the Law of Nature before Moses one kinde They might be bad Divines in deriving the Churches Title from the Levitical Law who had not been good Christians had they not discharged themselves to it But they can be neither good Divines nor good Christians that discharge the Church of the rights so purchased to it Alwayes this being the course of maintaining the Church from the beginning the evidence for the corporation of the Church is the same with the evidence for our common Christianity To wit the Scriptures with the consent of all Christians to limit the meaning of it
in the first book de Synedriis p. 214. acknowledges that it is not in use among the Jewes And the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel requires that those things which are prophesied in the Old Testament concerning the coming of God be understood to be completed in the second coming of Christ According to that of S. Paul Rom. XIV 10 11. Wee shall all be presented before the Judgment seat of Christ as it is written As I live saith the Lord To mee shall every knee bow and every tongue shall give glory to God Where that which the Prophet had said of the appearance of God in former judgments concerning his people Esa XLV 23. that the Apostle affirmeth to be fulfilled in the coming of our Lord Christ to judgment Therefore when S. Paul sayes Let him be anathema maranatha hee means let him expect vengeance at the second coming of Christ At which S. Jude sayes that the Prophesie of Enoch against the old world shall be accomplished upon those that hee writes against For how can hee say otherwise Enoch prophesied against these And can it be thought that a Jewish Excommunication can proceed upon supposition of the coming of our Lord Christ to judgment That were as much a jest as that of the History of Don Quixote where hee saith That the original Historian in the Arabick being a Mahumetane protests the truth of it upon the faith of a good Christian So when S. Paul saith again Rom. IX 3. I my self could wish to be anathema from Christ for my brethren my kindred according to the flesh I will not dispute that ingenious interpretation of Grotius which this Learned person with others allows That hee wishes in stead of an Apostle and Chief in the Church to be counted a man unfit for any Christian to converse with For it punctually agrees with S. Pauls stile 1 Cor. XII 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of the body being many are one body so is Christ That is to say the Church And so Gal. III. 27. Wee are baptized into Christ because into the Church But admitting this interpretation how can it be imagined to signifie a Jewish Excommunication that cuts of a Christian from the Church Hee that is put out of the Synagogue in as much as hee is put out of it is made Anathema to Moses not to Christ That is hee is cut off from the privileges of a Jew from the hope of returning into the Land of Promise and freedom in it from the yoke of forrain Nations Not from the hope of life everlasting which they indeed promise themselves by the Law of Moses but Christians know they cannot have unlesse they renounce the holding of it from the Law of Moses And therefore S. Paul when hee bids Anathema to whosoever shall preach another Gospel than that which hee had preached Gal. I. 8 9. must needs mean the same as a Christian which hee signifies to be meant by him that calleth Jesus anathema 1 Cor. XII 3. Hee that calleth Jesus anathema defieth him as rejected by God Anathema indeed signifieth that which is consecrated to God But it answers the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Levit. XXVIII because consecration was a profession of abandoning for ever that which was consecrated implying a curse upon all that should lay hands on it to any other use And when the Jewes said to their Fathers or Mothers Be it Korban whatsoever thou mayest be the better for of mine They cursed themselves if ever their Father or Mother were the better for any goods of theirs as much as if they should give them things consecrated to eat or to drink Supposing that if they did so no man was to touch or come near them more than consecrated things So when God made Jericho anathema or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever was not for the use of Gods service was to be destroyed whatsoever might be for his service hee that laid hands on it to any other use became himself of the condition of that which was not for Gods service And such the Apostle professeth to hold him whosoever should preach any other Gospel besides that which hee had preached For I must not allow that the Church when it excommunicateth or the Apostle when hee biddeth anathema intendeth to curse that is to say to pray to God actually to bring those curses upon them which they are liable to Though I confesse this is not the place to dispute such a question because the resolution of it will suppose something which can neither be proved nor supposed without proof in this place where my purpose is to settle the Principles of Christian Truth by which Principles this is to be resolved It shall be enough to say here that it is evident that the Greek Church following an order or sentence of S. John Chrysostomes doth for the most part insist that Christians are not to curse Christians Whatsoever be the practice of the Church of Rome in the Bull of Maundy Thursday at this time And yet the very present practice of that Church doth not seem necessarily to import praying for Gods vengeance upon Hereticks and others who are then cursed Because it is their custome to pray for their conversion the very next day that is on Good Friday Therefore it may very well seem that all their Solemnities of cursing do not amount to signifie that the Church prayes for mischief upon them whom they declare to be accursed but by these solemnities expresse how they would have them esteemed by Christians Though by that corruption of Christian charity which time hath brought to passe it be now generally understood no otherwise than as a Prayer for Gods vengeance And there may be great reason to think that the ancient Fathers and Councils did not pronounce anathema against Hereticks in any other sense or to any other purpose Nay the words of Vincentius Lirinensis which I quoted afore make it most evident that the ancient Christians understood nothing else by Anathema when hee expounds S. Paul Gal. I. 8 9. Anathema sit inquit Id est separatus segregatus exclusus nè unius ovis dirum contagium innoxium gregem Christi venenatâ permistione contaminet Let him be anathema saith hee That is let him be severed set aside shut out least the direfull contagion of one sheep with any mixture of venene stain the innocent flock of Christ Which is enough to show that therefore it ought not to have been put into the definition of that Excommunication which is pretended to be made by the Power of the Church that it containeth a curse or curses against them on whom it is inflicted as you shall finde the first book de Synedriis doth in the place quoted afore Because those that agree in challenging that right for the Church do not appear to agree in that point And this will serve for an argument of difference between
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
But also evident reason hath been drawn from the difference between the Law and the Gospel why the consequence holds not The second because the supposition of a Society of the Church imports in it means of determining maters controverted in Christianity which the dissolution of Ecclesiastical Power into the Secular voideth The third because those means of determining maters of Christianity will inferre a limitation of that obligation which the determinations of the Church produce in them that are subject to them meerly upon this ground that they cannot produce any effect beyond the means upon which they proceed And these two differences as I have begun to open according as the subject of this discourse hath ministred occasion to do it having hitherto removed this opinion that makes the Church nothing in the nature of a Society nor the act thereof to have any force but that which the Soveraign Power allowes and coming now to determine the means of discerning between true and false in things questionable concerning Christianity together with the effect of the Determinations of the Church I shall have occasion to determine more distinctly in that which follows Which being done it will be time to limit the due bounds by the which the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power are to concurre in the establishment of things to be determined to Christian States and Kingdomes in the mater of Christianity Which will be the due place to meet with that objection which is so hotly pursued in the first Book de Synedriis cap. X. that the Excommunications of the Church have been always thought lible in Christian Common-wealths to be limited by the Secular Power And therefore that there is no Excommunication by divine right Which objection if it have any force must hold in all parts and rights of Ecclesiastical Power as well as in one 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 into what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselves in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannot punish for Religion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlesse the Church determine the mater of it NOw because the Doctor of Oxford might think himself neglected or disparaged if having considered the first book de Synedriis which in the point of Excommunication hee hath made his own and the Leviathan I should take no notice of that which hee hath added I will not turn my Reader to him till I have noted the particulars in which hee seems to go alone Putting him first in minde to advise how to make his choice whom of the three hee will follow against all Christendom who upon several grounds have set upon the Church and the Article of our Creed that professes the same to destroy it Hee seems most to ground himself upon a supposition that the Power of the Keyes extends no further than the converting of a man to become a true Christian by preaching the Gospel or rather the convicting of him that hee ought so to be Resting therefore in the inward Court of the conscience and not reaching to any visible effect in the Church because nothing can be wanting to the salvation of such a one For him that is loose from sin by this means the Church cannot bind him that is bound by sin it cannot loose They that are by this means loos'd from sin have in themselves every one the Soveraign Power of judging between true false in Christianity as to the inward Court as to the outward their Soveraign They are therefore at their freedom to joyn in Ecclesiastical Communion with whom they like best and being so joyned do constitute a Church And Câ—rches so joyned may as they shall finde their proficience in Christianity require combine themselves with other Churches and assemble themselves in Synods to take order in maters of common concernment provided they be tyed no further by the resolutions of them than every man stands convict by the light which his loosing hath given him that they are either just or requisite By the same right they create themselves Pastors not with any Power to censure either people or Pastors further than reproving And such Churches as these hee imagines the first Synagogues of the Israelites under the Prophets to have been especially in the ten Tribes after Jeroboam Seeing they could not resort to Jerusalem yet resorted to such meetings for that service of God which was not confined to the Temple But the judgment of maters concerning Religion in the outward Court that is as to the world belonging onely to the Soveraign and the Powers derived from him hee vesteth even in the Heathen Emperors to the same effect as in Christian allowing a reason why they do well or ill in the exercise of it as they do that which the Scriptures allow or not but maintaining that they do not exceed their power whatsoever they do So that Excommunications Decrees of Councils Ordinations and whatsoever else may be done in behalf of the Church being done by virtue of this Power whether just or not are valid to â—y the outward man either to stand to them or to undergo the penalty assigned to the transgressing of them which being done in the name and the title of the Church are meer usurpations and nullities The ground then of this deceit which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the first mistake lies in this That a man is loosed from his sin meerly by the act of the inward man acknowledging himself convicted of the truth of Christianity or producing besides what inward act of faith this opinion can require Contrary to that which is settled by the premises that the outward act of professing Christianity is absolutely requisite to obtain forgivenesse of sins and other promises which the Gospel tendreth by the Holy Ghost the gift whereof the Sacrament inferreth For Baptisme presupposing the profession of the true Faith consigned into the hands of the Church requiring it as the condition upon which it tendreth remission of sins and the promise of the Holy Ghost inferreth also the communion of the Church unto which it admitteth Therefore is no body a Christian by believing the Scriptures nor hath by consequence any title to the Kingdom of God but by being baptized Nor is it worth the while among reasonable people to except those who may be prevented by unavoidable necessity of mortality of recovering that Baptisme which they had utterly resolved to submit themselves to any condition to obtain The Rule of the Law being a production of common reason that an exception confirmes a Rule in cases not excepted Now if it appear by the same consent of Christians that evidenceth our common Christianity that hee who obtains Baptisme
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.
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
cloth and the moon like bloud that the starrs fell to the earth as a fig-tree shaken with a great winde casts her figs that the heavens passed away as a book folded up and the Mountains and Islands were removed out of their places if ever such things could justly be said by the Prophets to expresse great alterations to fall out in the world then when those Tyrants and by consequence all their ministers for shame that they were not able to root up Christianity gave up the design with their power and left the Empire to strangers which in a few years fell into the hands of Constantine and the Christians his Ministers When could it be moÌ„re justly said that the Kings and great Ones of the earth the rich the Captains and the Nobles the bond and the free hid themselves in caves and rocks of the Mountains saying to them fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sits on the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb for the great day of his wrath is come and who can stand Then when the Persecuters some gave up the design others proclaimed the hand of God upon them and all their Ministers saw Christianity which they had persecuted to flourish and their powers possessed by Christians Which how strongly it inferreth especially if you take the premises along that the Trumpets sounding the vengeance taken upon the Jews the Viols must signifie the like upon the Empire for the ten persecutions raised upon the same pretense of rooting out Christianity not by those that professe Christianity though indeed they corrupt it I leave to all the world to judge Especially if wee consider that which is often repeated from the beginning of the Prophesy that the mater of it must come to pass shortly that they are happy that shall read and observe it and that to that purpose it is sent to the seven Churches of Asia as concerning them deeply Which if it concern vengeance to be taken of the blood of those that suffered by the Papacy by consequence of the premises is yet to come at least the vengeance prophesied and ten thousand chances to one if ever it do come while those that rack the Prophesy to signifie it are forced to prophesie themselves without evidencing any commission for it and the seven Churches in a maner suppressed by Infidels far enough from being any thing of the effect of it or any of those to whom S. John can be supposed to speak when hee sends it And truly supposing that the sound of the Trumpets concernes the Jews which no reason refuses no modesty denies and supposing again that S. John was not banished into Patmos till Domitians dayes which is the original and more probable report of Irenaeus though some suppose hee was sent thither afore when Claudius his Edict commanded all Jews to depart from Rome because Epiphanius sayes that hee prophesied under Clandius and the Pro-consul of Asia might as it was ordinary command the same for that Province which the Prince had at Rome For what probability can there be that S. John should be forbidden Asia when S. Paul was permitted Achaia as wee find by the Acts I say supposing this a very good reason is to be given why the calamities of the Jews then past are represented to S. John by the vision of the Trumpets to wit for the assurance and incouragement of the Christians for the terror and conversion of their Persecuters who knowing that which was come upon the Jews prophetically described by the sounding of the seven Trumpets might both the better understand that part of it and better inferre the meaning of the seven Vials together with that which goes afore to prepare the way for the pouring of them forth and follows to show the consequence of it And I must adde farther that though I say that the destruction of Jerusalem was past when S. John was banished into Patmos yet this Prophesy of it and of the seven Trumpets might be revealed to him before according to Epâ—phanius affirming that hee prophesied in Claudius his dayes For what hindreth that which concerned the Jews onely to be revealed while Jerusalem stood the visions of the seven Seals and seven Vials concerning the Gentiles either in part or onely being reserved to the persecution under Domitian in which S. John is commanded to write that Letter to the seven Churches which hee is commanded to send the whole Prophesy with Let mee now desire the Reader to look upon that interpretation which I have given in the Review of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian state to that which is prophesied of the Raign of the Saints that is the Christians with their Lord Christ for a thousand years Apoc. XX. which they they that referre the seventh Trumpet and the seven Viols in which it is accomplished to the judgments to come upon the Papacy cannot avoid to inferre the opinion of the Millenaries condemned long since and suppressed in the Church in so much that the most learned of them hath professedly set up the Standard to revive it I will not here suppose any thing how prejudicial this opinion either is or as it is held may be to Christianity This I will say that those which read the History of the Successors of Alexander Kings of Syria and Aegypt so expresly prophesied Dan. XI that many particulars of it might have been buried in oblivion had not the exposition of it inforced S. Hierome and his Predecessors to have recourse to those Histories which now are lost and out of them to relate such passages as the Prophet points at I say I shall count them strange men if seeing the rest agree with the Story when they come to Antiochus Epâ—phanes and those things which the Prophet foretells of his acts in a continued Narrative they can perswade themselves that they were not fulfilled under him but must belong to the coming of Antichrist I know S. Jerome is chargeable with it But it is one thing for him to follow some Predecessors in expounding that which hee knew not how to expound otherwise another thing to impose such a doctrine upon the Church upon no ground but such an interpretation as that I must say farther that the Visions of the VII and VIII Chapters of Daniel of the four Beasts and the ten horns of the fourth and the little horn that blasphemed God and made war against the Saints VII 8 9. Of the Ramâ—e and the Goat and the little horn thereof which made war against God and his people Dan. VII 9-14 must of necessity be understood of Antiochus Epiphanes because of the taking away of the daily sacrifice so expresly foretold That Nebucchadnezzars vision of the Statue which represents four Kingdomes the last whereof is evidently that of Syria and Aegypt whereof both in their turns had the command of the Jews Dan. II. seemeth to have no other aim but to introduce the Prophesie of
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
estates but offering the first fruits of them to the maintenance of it yet still was the Eucharist frequented at these occasions as it was first instituted by our Lord as by the express words of Tertullian we understand that it was even in his time But when the number of Christians so increased that the use of the like communion could not stand with the maintenance of the world which Christianity supposeth when the same discipline could not prevail in so vast a body which had ruled at the beginning is it then any marvail to see these Feasts of love laid aside whether with the Eucharist or without it and the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord become so unfrequented at Supper that it is strange to the rest of Christendom to see it so used in Egypt on Maundy Thursday in remembrance meerly of the primitive custome What shall we say of the order of Widows whereof S. Paul writeth Is it not manifest that there was then a necessity of such persons as might give attendance upon the sick and poor and impotent of every Church that might minister hospitality to those strangers that should travail by every Church and were to receive entertainment according to the custome And is it not manifest that when Christianity increasing daily oblations could not serve for this purpose but standing indowments were to be provided this course could not serve the turn nor the office continue necessary when the work ceased There is nothing more evident then that which I have said in another place concerning the rigour of Penance under the Apostles Nothing to intimate that they forbade any sinne how grievous soever to be admitted to reconcilement with God by the Church Many evident Arguments that they left it in the power of the Church to grant it or not But the increase of Christianity abating the sincerity and zeal of Christians made it so necessary to abate of that rigour and to declare free access even for Adulterers Murtherers and Apostates to the worship of Idols that Montanus first and afterwards the Novatians are justly counted Schismaticks for departing from the Church upon that which the change of times made necessary for the preservation of unity in it Which the Donatists remain much more liable to breaking out afterwards upon a branch of the same cause Yet is nothing more evident to them that use not the unction of the sick then that instance For what is or what can be alleadged why an expresse precept of the Apostles backed with the uninterrupted practice of the Church should not take place but the appearance that the reason for which it was commanded ceaseth the miraculous curing of bodily sickness no more remaining in the Church and so drawing after it the ceremony which signified procured it But in S. Pauls dispute of womens covering their heads in the Church the case is not so clear unless we admit two suppositions both evident upon the credit of Historicall truth The first that neither Jews Greeks or Romanes ever used or knew what it meant to uncover the head in sign of reverence What use soever they made of Hats or Caps as they had use of them though not to continue all as we have seeing you never find that they put them off in sign of reverence it is impossible that keeping them on should be understood among them for a sign of irreverence And therfore that the whole dispute nothing concerns the question of preaching with a Hat or a Cap on in the Church The second is that which we learn by Tertullians Book de Velandis Virginibus The subject whereof being that Virgins are not exempted by any priviledge from vailing their faces in the Church is argued by consequences drawn from this dispute of S. Paul And namely it is alledged that in the Church of Corinth at that time according to S. Pauls order they vailed their faces Whereby it appears that S. Paul was understood to speak of a vail which covering the head came down before the face which S. Paul therefore one while calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which is so upon the head as it comes down before the face in English a vail And so Clemens Alexandrinus and others understand it This being the case what is the reason which ceasing the precept thereupon may be thought to cease Surely nothing else but because those Christians which overcame the Romane Empire did not think that civility and the modesty of women required them to keep their faces vail'd as the opinion and custome of Jews Greeks and Romanes to whom S. Paul preached did require And though he argueth that nature which teacheth women every where to let their haire grow at length teaches them to vail their faces because even unclothed they are provided of a vail yet when he addeth If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Chuches of God It is manifest he intends no law of Nature but an inference which civility making from Nature was fit to be maintained by the custome of the Church as that custome for the unity of the Church But when those Nations whose civility had not made the same inference received Christianity is it marvail that Christianity should not impose that upon them which being no part of Christianity had no ground unlesse they would be bound to receive the civility of other Nations upon the account of the common Christianity In the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem prohibiting the Gentilish Christians things sacrificed to Idols strangled and blood it appeareth by the disputes of sundry learned men admitting the Jews Tradition that all the Sonnes of Noe received seven precepts from God which when other Nations fell away to Idols remained visible onely in the practise of such as not being Jews nor circumcised are neverthelesse in sundry places of the Law allowed to live among them in the Land of promise under the name of the stranger within the Gates For this allowance was upon condition of undertaking these seven precepts When therefore Gentiles were admitted to Christianity with Jews and the question resolved that they were free of the Law of Moses and yet an expedient was requisite not to scandalize the Jews by the use of that freedom that Jews and Gentiles might the more kindly joyn in one Church it appears that the precept of blessing the name of God that is worshipping God was sufficiently provided for by the Christian faith The precepts of maintaining Courts of Judicatures and of forbearing rapine were sufficiently provided for by the Government of the Empire and the precept of the Sabbath out of date under the Gospel It remaineth therefore that by prohibiting things sacrificed to Idols and fornication with that which was strangled and blood the Apostles establish such compliance between Jewish and Gentilish Christians as was in use between Jews and strangers Proselytes in the Land of promise Not as if
spirit to show that he is no Schismatick not acknowledging much lesse holding the unity of the Church out of which no man can be accounted otherwise But I marvail most wherein he would have the crime of Schisme acknowledged by S. Paul in that one Text which he would be tried by to consist It is the Law of Nature that inables Christians to â—oyn in a independent Congregation as our other Doctor of Oxford hath told us If a Covenant or League passe between so many Soveraigns in this point consider how difficult it is to charge a Soveraign with breach of League such contracts consisting of many Articles one whereof violated voids the contract At least to the contrary there is no Rule Now the Covenant of a Congregation must suppose all Christianity the violation whereof in any point by any member supported by the rest frees a man of his contract How then shall S. Pauls words take place 1 Cor. XI 19. There must be Heresies that the approved may become manifest among you For if one leave six the Congregation consisting of seven how shall it appear that the six are in the right But in my supposition these petty animosities at Corinth may have been fomented by secret Hereticks as in time I shall show that they were And their indeavour might be to make a party for their Heresie out of other Churches as well as out of that of Corinth and being formed to unite them by the like bond as they saw the Church tied with by the Apostles In this case division is ruinous to Christianity not when the question is whether seven shall meet together or three and four For by this means it may become difficult for particular Christians upon true principles to give sentence for themselves in the matter of differances but easie to miss the truth and to joyn with the enemies of it thinking they serve God in communicating with them by charging themselves with judging of the sense of the Scriptures either in those Laws of the Church which concern not the salvation of particular Christians or in the common faith without those bounds which God hath provided by the Church And upon these terms those that are approved may and do become manifest by the rising of Heresies in the Church That which I shall inferre is this That though there be no such virtue as implicite faith because it is no part of faith no office of that virtue to believe that any thing is true because the Church believes it with that firm adherance to it as we are resolved to stand to that by believing which we hope to be saved yet it is part of the virtue and part of the office of a faithfull man that is a Christian to conform himselfe to the beliefe of all that which the Church lawfully determineth to be believed that is to say not to professe the contrary of it and upon that profession to do any thing towards dissolving the unity of the Church so long as the determination thereof causeth not that corruption of those things which the society of the Church presupposeth as may seem to make the unity thereof uselesse whereof this is not the place to debate when it comes to pass It is sufficient for the present that whatsoever the Church hath power to determine according to the premises that the Church that is all particular Christians are obliged not to believe by the office of faith which is onely exercised in them who can make deductions of conclusions from the principles of faith who necessarily holding the conclusions in consideration meerly of the premises do necessarily believe the conclusions by that virtue of faith which holds the principles but to hold and to conform to and not to scandalize by the office of that charity which is most eminently exercised about that which concerns the common good of all Christians in generall which uothing in the world can so much concern next the common faith as the unity and communion of the Church Thus have I bounded the power of the Church and so showed the reason upon which the right use of it is to proceed I showed afore the ground of that exception which the interest of secular Power in Church matters createth to the due use of it When I shall have showed in the third book what the Law of God hath determined in matters concerding the communion of the Church and by consequence what it leaveth to the Church to determine it will be time to take in hand the same consideration again For the ground of this exception will show how farre it extendeth whereby it will appear that Christian Powers do acknowledge the Church and the power of it to stand by Gods Law even when they limit the exercise of it by virtue of that interest which the law of God alloweth them in Church matters CHAP. XXVI What it is to adde to Gods Law What to adde the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures The man of God perfit How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God IN the beginning of this Book I proposed the chief Texts of Scripture which are usually drawn into consequence to prove either the infallibility of the Church or the sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures Of which I may truly say that they are and have been for these hundred and forty yeares the Theme of a dispute between the Scriptures and the Church for the right of giving Law to the consciences of Christians what communion to chuse that of the Reformation or that of the Church of Rome But with so little success that a discreet man may truly say that the parties do now stand at a bay as it is visible that they do meerly because they are not able to force one another by the arms which they are furnished with the Arguments of either side serving to maintain them against the adversary meerly because the arguments of the other side are insufficient not because either hath either the whole truth or nothing of the truth for it I showed you there that they come short of making good that which they are imployed to prove on this side as well as on that As for my present business which is here to show how the sense of them concurs to the truth which I have established I shall but desire any man of common sense to make an argument from the Text of Moses alledged in the first place and say The people of Israel are forbidden by the Law of Moses to adde any thing to the said Law and to take any thing from it Therefore the Scriptures contain clearly set down to all understandings concerned all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians then to tell me whither he will undertake to make good this consequence of not For if the Law of Moses cannot pretend to contain
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
therefore affected a compliance with the ancient Church And truly it is fit it should be thought that they complied with him because hee complied with the Catholick Church for by that reason they shall comply with the Church if in any thing hee comply not with it But it is a great deal too little for him to say that will say the truth for the Church of England For it hath an Injunction which ought still to have the force of a Law that no interpretation of the Scripture be alleged contrary to the consent of the Fathers Which had it been observed the innovations which I dispute against could have had no pretense If this be not enough hee that shall take pains to peruse what Dr. Field hath writ hereupon in his work of the Church shall find that which I say to be no novelty either in the Church of England of in the best learned Doctors beyond the Seas And sure the Reformation was not betrayed when the B. of Sarum challenged all the Church of Rome at S. Pauls Crosse to make good the points in difference by the first DC years of the Church Always it is easie for me to demonstrate that this resolution That the Scripture holding the meaning of it by the Tradition of the Church is the onely means to decide controversies of Faith is neerer to the common terms that the Scripture is the onely Rule of Faith than to that Infallibility which is pretended for the Church of Rome Having demonstrated that to depend upon the Infallibility of the present and the Tradition of the Catholick Church are things inconsistent whereas this cannot be inconsistent with that Scripture which is no lesse delivered from age to age than Tradition is though the one by writing the other by word of mouth and serving chiefly to determine the true meaning of it when it comes in debate And if prejudice and passion carry not men headlong to the ruine of that Christianity which they professâ— it cannot seem an envious thing to comply with the most learned of the Church of Rome who acknowledge not yet any other Infallibility in the Church then I claime rather than with the Socinians the whole Interest of whose Heresie consists in being tryed by Scripture alone without bringing the consent of the Church into consequence and that supposing all mater of Faith must be clear in the Scripture to all them that consult with nothing but Scripture But I cannot leave this point till I have considered a singular conceit advanced in Rushworthes Dialogues for maintaining the Infallibility of the Church upon a new account The pretense of that Book is to establish a certain ground of the choice of Religion by the judgement of common sense To which purpose I pretend not to speak in this place thinking it sufficient if this whole work may inable them who are moved with it duely to make that choice for themselves and to show those that depend on them how to do the like But in as much as no man will deny the choice of Religion to be the choice of truth before falshood in those particulars whereof the difference of Religion consists It is manifest that the means of discerning between true and false in mater of Faith which I pretend cannot stand with that which hee advanceth It consists in two points That the Scripture is not and that Tradition is the certain means of deciding this truth Which if no more were said will not amount to a contradiction against that which I resolve For hee that sayes the Scripture is not the onely means excluding that Tradition which determines the meaning of it doth neither deny that Tradition is nor say that the Scripture is the certain means of deciding this kind of truth But the issue of his reasons will easily show upon what termes the contradiction stands Hee citeth then common sense to witnesse that wee cannot rest certain that wee have those Scriptures which came wee agree by inspiration of God by reason of the manifold changes which common sense makes appearance must come to passe in transcribing upon such a supposition as this That so many Columns as one Book contâ—ins so many Copies at least are made every hundreth years and in every Copy so many faults at least as words in one Column Upon which account 15 or 16 times as many faults having been made in all copies as there are words it will be so much oddes that wee have no true Scripture in any place Abating onely for those faults that may have fallen out to be the same in several copies And if Sixtus V Pope causing 100 copies of the Vulgar Latine to be compared found two thousand faults supposing two thousand copies extant which may be supposed a hundred thousand in any Language what will remain unquestionable It is further alleged that the Scripture is written in Languages now ceased which some call Learned Languages because men learn them to know such Books as are written in them the meaning whereof not being subject to sense dependeth upon such a guessing kind of skill as is subject to mistake as experience showes in commenting of all Authors But especially the Hebrew and that Greek in which wee have the Scriptures That having originally no vowels to determine the reading of it wanting Conjunctions and Preposiaions to determine the signification of him that speaks all the Language extant being contained in the Bible alone the Jews Language differing so much as it does from it the Language of the Prophets consisting of such dark Tropes and Figures that no skill seems to determine what they mean This so copious and by that means so various in the expressions of it though wanting that variety of Conjugations by which the Hebrew and other Eastern Languages vary the sense that to determine the meaning of it is more than any ordinary skill can compasse Adde hereunto the manifold equivocations incident to whatsoever is expressed by writing more incident to the Scripture as pretending to give us the sense of our Lords words for example not the very syllables Adde the uncertainties which the multiplicity of Translations must needs produce and all this must needs amount to this reckoning That God never meant the Bible for the means to decide controversies of Faith the meaning whereof requires many principles which God alone can procure because so indefinite Which the nature of the Book argueth no lesse as I observed being written in no method of a Law or a Rule nor having those decisions that are to oblige distinguished from mater of a farre diverse and almost impertinent nature Upon these premises it is inferred as evident to common sense that the Scripture produces no distinct resolution of controversies though as infinitely usefull for instruction in virtue so tending to show the truth in maters of Faith in grosse and being read rather to know what is in it than to judge by it by the summary agreement of it with that which
the motives of Christianity could never have prevailed to introduce it into the belief and profession of all Christendom had they not been true But it followeth not therefore that Christianity beeing settled and a Power to conclude the Church lawfully vested in some members of it in behalf of the whole within due bounds The act of this Power transgressing the due bounds shall not be able to produce in so great a Body an opinion of the like obligation upon the expresse act of this Power as upon Tradition truly derived from the Apostles For the truth of Christianity professed called in question mens lives and fortunes which they were not therefore so ready to ingage upon an imposture But if when Soveraigns own the act of that Power which concludeth the Church hee that acknowledges it not calls in question his estate and reputation or whatsoever good of this world the protection of the Church ingageth Upon this account then it is possible that innovation should come into the Church without calling in question the common principle that nothing is to be admitted which comes not from the Apostles Nay without calling in question other points of Christianity so received Because nothing hinders things inconsistent with or at least impertinent to that which the Apostles have delivered to be received as consequent to that which indeed they have delivered though not as expresly contained in the same And because I would not speak without instance in a businesse so general I demand of those that hold this opinion whether they believe that the Greek and Latine Church at such time as the Schism fell out between them did both believe Tradition as well as Scripture And when it appears that there was no visible difference between them in that regard at that time I shall desire them to tell mee what they think of their demand that all Sectaries have alwayes left Tradition to betake themselves to Scripture alone For though I pretend not to suppose either the one party or the other guilty of Schism or Heresie in this place yet I pretend it visible to common sense that they who pretend to receive nothing but from the Apostles may think that which is not to be received from the Apostles unlesse contradictories may be both true at once Another instance I will give that learned Gentleman Tho. White who professeth to put Rushworths Dialogues into the world as his ward and an Orfane out of the book which hee hath published of the mean state of souls between death and the general Judgment to show that there is a Tradition of the Church that the greatest part of the souls of Christians that are not damned continue in a state of joy or grief proportionable to the affection they had to this world while they were of it to be purged thereof at the general Judgment but are not translated by any prayers of the Church to the kingdom of heaven from Purgatory pains For I demand of him that believes this whether it be received now or not how hee will defend his Ward that maintains the present Tradition to be alwaies the same For if it be said that it is not decreed by the Church though generally believed and practiced accordingly I will say that my businesse is done when the most votes by so many degrees are consenting to that which hee maintains is contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles his vote and perhaps two or three more in the communion of the Church of Rome not hindring that which is received in practice to be a more effectual Law in force than abundance of things inacted in writing that will never come to effect A third instance I will give in the difference between the Reformation and the Church of Rome concerning the Canon of Scripture Supposing that the late Scholastical History thereof hath made evidence that those books belonging to the Old Testament which the Council of Trent maketh Canonical Scripture were never received for such from the Apostles In as much as it is evident that there were in all ages of the Church that did not take them for Canonical Scripture For this being supposed what question can remain that this decree cannot be taken to proceed from Tradition of the Apostles But from a mistake in the Power of the Church as grounded upon a gift of infallibility tyed by God upon the visible act of persons inabled to decree in Council Otherwise men of reason would not have taken upon them to make that Canonical Scripture which there is evidence that they never received for Canonical Scripture And indeed I who have no more to demand here but that something may be thought by the Church to come from the Apostles which in truth it never received from the Apostles do seek no more by the premises but this That no general presumption from the present Church be receivable against evidence of historical truth in the records of by-past ages That men will not take that for the Tradition of the Catholick Church which some part of the Church they see hath not owned for such That they will abate of the generality of their position as the particulars out of which the induction must rise may require I take not upon mee to say here that any foundation of Faith necessary to the salvation of all hath been or can have been extinguished by Tradition of the present Church But I say here that something may be taken by the present Church to come from the Apostles which in truth comes not from the Apostles And so long as that is true I say that the choice of Religion cannot be prejudged by common sense without taking into consideration the weight of those truths which may appear to be held otherwise by the present Church then originally they have been received from the Apostles Now to that which is said that unlesse Christianity continue as it was delivered the possibilities provided by God to that end will be in vaine Though it be a dispute as unseasonable here as to little purpose yet because it requires no more than common sense to judge I say that the ends of Gods creatures and works are none of Gods ends My meaning is that it is one thing to say God would have this to be the end of his creature happinesse for example to be the end of man another thing to say that hee made man to bring him to happinesse The difference being the same in the works of his providence whether it be said that hee provided such means as of their nature tended to propagate the truth of Christianity preached by the Apostles to all posterity or that hee intended thereby to propagate the same In a word whether it be said to be Gods end or the end of his works And truly hee that sayes it was Gods end consequently sayes that God falls short of his end if it come not to passe But hee that will speak of God with reverence must not imagine
redierunt de Babyloniâ post Malachiam Aggaeum Zachariam qui tunc prophetaeverunt Esdram non habuerunt Prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum All that time from their return from Babylonia after Haggai Zachary and Malachy who then prophesied and Esdras they had no Prophets till the Saviors coming Excepting those whom wee finde mentioned in the Gospels And truly it is manifest by historical truth that there was a part of that Nation that gave themselves to use the Greek Language in there dispersions whereas those that returned into the Land of Promise as well as those that remained in Babylonia had learned the language of that Countrey being very near their own which was retained onely amongst the book-learned Seeing then that it is manifest that these books were committed to writing in the Greek for the most part at least it cannot in reason be imagined that the whole Nation acknowledged them as Scriptures inspired by God must have been acknowledged which no man can say that ever they came generally to be used by the whole Nation or could come to be used being onely in Greek Wee shall not finde much of them translated for the use of them that conversed in the Ebrew unlesse it be Tobit For Ecclesiasticus it is true was first written in Ebrew and but translated into Greek When the Old Testament was translated into Greek then and among them that used it were they added to the writings of the Prophets and so received by the Church that received those Scriptures from them in Greek in the same nature and upon the like credit as it was visible they held them from the time that first they were received It is now no mervail to see some men upon the truth of these reasons quite renounce all the advantage which Christianity hath by the witnesse which these writings being impartial as uttered before it came into the world do render it because they are unduely advanced by others to the rank of those that are inspired by God For the spirit of contradiction naturally carries weak men to oversee to destroy their own Interest so they may be farr enough from those whom they desire to bear down So wee are content to yield the Socinians all the advantage which the consent of the Church gives us against them upon condition that the differences wee have with the Church of Rome may be decided by Scripture alone And so are wee content to betray the Church to fight without the armes that are to be had out of these books that wee may be free of them when they seem to crosse some prejudice wherein wee have ingaged our selves But if that which hath been said of the fulfilling of the Prophets in the literal sense at this time between the return from Captivity and the coming of our Lord be not premised amisse Without doubt all the world could not recompense the losse of the books of Maccabees and the use of them to the understanding of the Prophets so inestimable is the benefit of them to that purpose And truly I should not stick to the reasons which I have premised if I should not observe here that when that people began to be persecuted for their Religion by the Gentiles it pleased God so to order the mater that for their comfort and resolution in adhering to it the truth of the Resurrection and Judgment and the World to come should be openly and clearly received and professed which though never questioned yet had been sparingly and darkly preached by the Prophets themselves Wee see it in the exhortations of the mother of the Maccabees to her children 2 Mac. VII 23. 29. and in their own protestations according to the words of the Apostle Heb. XI 35 36. that they suffered in consideration of the world to come And it is as well to be seen in those visions whereby the Resurrection is figured out to the Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel for in their time began the persecution of Gods people And as in their time those revelations were granted so by their doctrine and the doctrine of the Prophets their successors were the people of God fortified against Apostasy by the assurance of the resurrection and the world to come And by this means also and upon this ground that inward and spiritual obedience which the mystical intent of the Law requireth in order to everlasting life is so clearly and so plentifully expressed in those moral writings of the Wisedom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus that it is a great mervail to see those who are so eager to perswade Christian poople to be informed in the Law of Moses and the Prophets though many times not knowing the reason upon which the obligation of the Law ceaseth they are not onely scandalized thereby with Jewish opinions but lost and seduced to be circumcised so violent to prohibite them the information which from hence they may have in their Christianity For so sure as the Apostle in the eleventh to the Ebrews shows that all the Fathers were saved upon the same terms as Christians are so sure as the Fathers of the Church as I have elsewhere alleged convince the Jews that the Fathers before the Law were saved as Christians and not as Jews so sure an advaatage hath Christianity fro◠all that is written before it came in force Whether because it could not have been received by the Synagogue had it contained things contrary to that rule of piety and means of salvation which in the Synagogue within which it is acknowledged on all sides that means of salvation was found was in force Or whether because being written by the immediate successors of the Prophets they had as it were the sound of that doctrine still in their ears which they had received from them by word of mouth For hee that would make a question that the doctrine of the world to come is more plentifully and clearly delivered in these writings than in the Scriptures of the Old Testament inspired by God And by consequence that inward and spiritual obedience which becomes due in order to the same more plentifully here described hath no more to do but to turn over the books and compare them which will not fail to justifie what I affirm As for the book of Judith though perhaps ignorant people may scandalize themselves at it yet I shall professe to think it no disparagement to the credit or to the right and due use thereof if the conceit which Grotius hath published and confirmed by several circumstances observed in the tenor of the book should hold both in it and in the book of Tobit To wit that it was not written for a history nor requireth historical faith that such a thing was ever done but as an allegory or figure described by way of Romance to expresse the malice of Satan under the shadow of Nebuchadnesar against Jewry signified by Judith a widow and fair exercised by his Deputy Holofernes in the person of Antiochus
Epiphanes but trusting in God for deliverance The rest serving to fill up the relation I will not say so much of the book of Tobit because it is so farr from creating any difficulty in point of time that it helps very much to dissolve those difficulties which are made otherwise But this I will confidently say that supposing it to be a meer parable relating what hapned to a true Israelite in whom was no guile continuing faithfull to God and to his people in a difficult time of persecution it will be of no lesse consequence to the animating of Christians in the like course then supposing the thing related to have come to pass As for the History of Susanna what pains Origen hath taken to perswade the learned Julius Africanus for to him as wee learn by S. Jerome in Catalogo his leter of this subject is directed that it is a true story every man that will take the pains to peruse that leter may see Some say that the Jews have the same story differing in the relation of it in that they make the two Elders to be punished by Nebucadnezar not by their own people And though Origen is witnesse that the Jews had the Power of the Sword sometimes in their dispersions Yet under the Chaldeans when they were lately transplanted it is like enough they had it not For these two Elders the Jews they will have to be Ahab and Colaiah of whom you reade Jer. XXIX 21. And truly there is appearance that this relation being delivered from hand to hand among the Jews was at length penned by some of them that used the Greek and so added to the Greek Bible For you have in the Great Bible two several Editions of it in the Syriack much differing one from the other in litle circumstances Though one of them gives the two Elders other names than the Jews do Which as it will not allow the Writing to be inspired by God so will it inforce as much edification from it not detracting from the truth of it For what doth it detract that hee that writ it useth an allusion from the names of Trees under which they accuse her to have committed uncleannesse which the Greek onely bears Daniel answering to him that saw her under a Holm tree in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that said under a Mastick tree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is indeed an argument that hee who penned it in Greek was willing to bring in a figure to set forth a conceit which the Ebrew would not bear for Origen cannot perswade mee that there can have been those names for these trees in the Ebrew though now unknown to us vvhich hold the same allusion a chance of ten thousand to one but is the writing of ever the lesse effect and consequence to the incouraging and vvarning of Gods people to vvalk in his Lavv I vvill here adde the consideration of that vvhich I observe to be common to many of them and in my opinion serves to shovv hovv much there is in them of the sense of the Nevv Testament and of the doctrine of our Lord and his Apostles This consideration rises thus S. Jerome in his Preface to the Books of Solomon saith that some ancient Church Writers ascribe the Book of Wisedom to Philo the Jevv Not meaning as hee expresly addeth that Philo that lived under Caligula vvhose works wee have but another that lived under Onias the High Priest Therefore whatsoever may have been said since S. Jerome of the author of this book cannot make it to be of the age of Caligula S. Augustine de Civ Dei XVII 20. saith that Ecclesiasticus and it both have been ascribed to Solomon as S. Jerome also in Dan. IX saith that Ecclesiasticus was then called Solomons Wisedome propter nonnullam eloquii similitudinem Because there is some resemblance between the frame of Solomons stile and that which they use Which as it is most true so is it manifest that there is no maner of resemblance between the stile of them and of our Philo. As for the mater of the work the addresse which hee maketh to the Kings and Princes and Judges of the earth I. a. VI. 1 2-10 22. manifesteth that it is intended for an exhortation to the Gentiles under whose power Gods people was not to persecute them for serving the onely true God but rather to learn the knowledg and worship of him themselves This is the occasion of setting forth the Wisedom of God from whence the Law in which the wisedom of the Nation consisted according to Moses Deut. IV. 6 7. came and which dwelt afterwards as in Solomon so in the rest of the Prophets and Patriarchs from Adam downwards as you may see from that sixth Chapter in the processe of the Book This is the intent of that which is said concerning the wisedom of that people coming from God in the Book of Baruch III. 12-38 For intending to exhort them to stick fast to God and not to fall away to the Idols of the Nations in the Captivity as the Prophets Esay and Jeremy had done which is the cause why it is ascribed to Baruch hee puts them in minde that it was none but God that could discover that way of wisedom which the Law taught Israel Which wisedom saith hee afterwards was seen on earth and conversed among men For so I construe the words not to mean that God was seen on earth and conversed among men not because it is not true but because it is not so plainly said in the writings of the Prophets but the wisedom of God was seen on earth and conversed among men to wit in the Prophets who spoke by the word and wisedom of God In like maner when the three Squires of the Body to King Darius undertook to plead what is of most force the third having named women to be the strongest addeth that Truth prevaileth over all Meaning that the truth which God by his Law had declared to his people should prevail over all that is strong in this world And so incouraging the King to protect it by countenancing the building of the Temple As you may see in the third of Esdras II. III. 34-40 Which I suppose here to be a piece that comes from the Egyptian Jews being first read in the Greek Bible and not in any record of the Jews otherwise Finally Ecclesiasticus commending the Wisedom which hee pretendeth to teach and for the mater of his commendation having recourse to the original of it descants indeed upon Solomons plain song in the VIIIth and IXth of the Poverbs and therefore delivers no new revelations but the right intent of that Prophets doctrine but recommends the Wisedom of his Nation farr beyond all that can be said of any Wisedom of the Gentiles as coming from that Wisedom by which God made the world and governs it ever since Ecclesiasticus I. XXIV from which also the Law and the Prophets came Now Ecclesiasticus
God in Spirit and truth which the Gospel requireth is so plentifully preached in all those writings which wee call Apocrypha Whereas in our Saviors and his Apostles time and much more afterwards they promised themselves the kingdome of heaven upon the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees That is upon the outward and carnal observation of Moses Law and preciseness in all those little niceties which their Masters had fensed it with For it is no mervail that they who under persecution promised themselves a part in the resurrection of the righteous cleaving to God and his Law should finde themselves tyed to that obedience in spirit and truth which God who is a Spirit sees and allows But lesse mervail it is that having attained the carnal promises of the Law in the possession of the Land of Promise they should fall away from the like zeal and yet promise themselves the world to come upon that form of godliness which they observed being destitute of the force and power of it As an argument that this consideration is well grounded and true I will here adde the authority and practice of the primitive Church prescribing these books to be read by the Catechumeni or those that professed to believe the truth of Christianity and offered themselves to be instructed in the mater of it in order to Baptism and being made Christians For seeing these might be as well Jews as Gentiles this signifies that the doctrine of them was held by the Church a fit instruction towards Christianity even for those that were already acquainted with the doctrine of the Prophets S. Athanasius then in Synopsi testifieth that these books were read to the Catechumeni To the same purpose it is read in the Constitutions of the Apostles though the place is not at hand at present And that which the last Canon of the Apostles prescribes that besides the Canonical Scriptures the book of Ecclesiasticus be read by the youth seems to tend to the same purpose To the same purpose Dionysius de div Nom. cap. IV. calls the Book of Wisedom an Introduction to the divine Oracles But let no man think to inferr that the Apostles took these Books for Scripture inspired by God because I grant that they borrowed from them in their writings Origen hath met with this objection Prol. in Cant. where hee observeth That the Apostles have borrowed some things out of Apocryphal Scriptures as S. Jude out of the books of Enoch and the departure of Moses and yet addes that wee are not to give way to the reading of them because wee must not transgresse the bounds which our Fathers have fixed Where you see hee distinguisheth those books which the Church did not allow to be read under the name of Apocrypha from those which it did allow to be read and are therefore more properly called Ecclesiastical Scriptures which name hath particularly stuck by way of excellence upon the Wisedom of the son of Sirach though I contend not about names when wee call them Apocrypha because I see that S. Jerome hath sometimes done it And if S. Paul have alleged Aratus Menander and Epimenides heathen Poets hee did not thereby intend to allow the authors but the mater which hee allegeth If these things be so I shall not desire to abridg any mans liberty from arguing against the mater of these Books to prove them not inspired by God because not agreeing with those which wee know and agree to have been inspired by God But I shall warn them that take upon them thus to argue first to look about them that they bring not the unquestionable parts of Scripture into an undue suspicion for agreeing in something for which they have conceived a prejudice that these Books are not to be received The design of Judith and her proceeding in the execution of it is charged not to agree with Christianity neither is it my purpose here to maintain that it doth But I am more than afraid that those who object this do not know how to distinguish it from the fact of Jaell the wife of Heber the Kenite in the book of Judges which the Spirit of God in Deborah the Prophetesse so highly extolleth The like is to be said of the like passages questioned in the book of Tobit and the Maccabees and namely the fact of Razias killing himself least hee should fall into the hands of persecutors which seemeth to be related with much approbation 2 Mac. XIV 41-46 For to distinguish this fact from Samsons it will not serve the turn to say that Samson did it by inspiration of Gods Spirit supposing afore that it was contrary to Gods declared Law to do it The difficulty being greater in saying that the declared Law of God is violated by the motion of Gods Spirit when as the Spirit of God is not granted to any man but upon supposition of acknowledging Gods declared Law For howsoever Saul or Caiaphas or Balaam may be moved by the Spirit of God to speak such things as by the Scriptures inspired by God wee learn that they did speak Yet that God should imploy upon his own Commission as the Judges of whom it is said that the Spirit of God came upon them were manifestly imployed by God whom hee favored not is a thing which cannot agree with the presumption which all Christians have of the salvation of the Fathers As for the passage of Eccles XLVI 23. which seems to say that it was the soul of Samuel the Prophet and not an evil Spirit assuming his habit that foretold the death of Saul I do not understand why all this may not be said according to appearance not according to truth For it will still make for the honor of Samuel that the King whatsoever opinion hee had of this means of fore-knowledg should desire to see Samuel as him whom in his life time hee found so unquestionable But if it be said that this cannot satisfie the leter of the Scripture yet can it not be said that as Saul a wicked man did believe that hee might see Samuel so a good man at that time might not have the same Being then no part of the truth which true piety obliged all men to acknowledg In the book of Tobit there are several things besides questionable But they that imagine conjuring in the liver of a fish to drive away an unclean Spirit do not consider those exorcisms whereby it is evident both by the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles besides divers of the most ancient Fathers of the Church that the Jews both in our Lords times and after did cast out unclean Spirits For what force could they have but from the appointment of God from whom at first they were delivered for a testimony of his residence among his people Which makes me stick to condemn that relation of the Jews in the Talmud extant also in Suidas that there were admirable remedies delivered by Solomon which hee caused to be writ upon
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
any body but by him that translated the rest Therefore wee are as much to seek for the author of this Translation as if wee did not grant that ever the Law was translated by LXXII persons sent from Jerusalem to Philadelphus And therefore I make no difficulty to grant that this Translation which cannot be ascribed to those LXXII was made by the Jews of Alexandria or Aegypt where the Jews injoyed great liberties from the first Ptolomees time flourishing in learning and neglecting their own language for the Greek whereupon they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say Jews that spoke Greek But I say withall that I do not understand why the reputation of this Translation should be ever a whit the worse than if it had been made by LXXII sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria on purpose supposing it to have been done by the Jews of Alexandria The reasons why I think it was made by the Jews of Alexandria supposing the translating of the Law by the LXX I confesse are but probabilities but which finding the truth ballanced by the difficulties premised seem to way down on that side First in Caninius his Hellenismus at the Imperfect Tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Boeoticè Chalcidicè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quae forma LXX Int. frequens Nam Asianis etiam vernacula Lycophron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Boeotick and Chalcidick saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which form the LXX Translators frequent For it is the Asiaticks mother language Lycophron uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which hee saith of the Asiatick Greeks I have not yet found All that use this dialect so farr as I have observed are the Greek Bible the books wee call Apocrypha and Epiphanius Excepting Lycophron who was born at Chalcis in Euboea standing upon the confines of Boeotia but lived at Alexandria And therefore I conceive Caniniâ—u should have counted it Alexandrian and not Boeotick or Chalcidick The like I say when for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second Aorist or indefinite tense hee makes the Boeotick to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in the same authors namely the Greek Bible the Apocrypha Epiphanius and Lycophron you shall finde the like and in some of them if my memory fail mee not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which dialect Caninius also alleges out of some Grammarians Now I have not found this Greek used by any author that lived in Palestine where Epiphanius though hee conversed much yet cannot well be thought to have learned his Greek And therefore it is to mee a mark that an Alexandrian rather than a Palestine Jew should make it Secondly whereas by Josephus Antiq. III. 9. by S. Jerome Hesychius and many others it is manifest that the Jews Shekel was equal to the Attick tetradrachme or piece of four drachmes it is alwayes translated by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or piece of two drachmes A thing which hath bred strange opinions in some mens fansies and caused whole books to be written that the Jews used two Shekels and that the Shekel of the Sanctuary was double the vulgar Whereas all this difficulty vanishes if wee say that they translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Alexandrian drachma because that was indeed double the Attick For first Julius Pollux Onomast IX 6. affirmeth that the Talent of every Greekish State consisted of VI M drachmes of the same coin as the Attick Talent contained VI M. Attick drachmes Then Festus in the word Talentum saith that the Alexandrian Talent contained XII M. Attick drachmes Which cannot otherwise be true unlesse the Alexandrian drachme be double the Attick Now it is no lesse improbable that Palestine Jews though translating at Alexandria should translate according to the value of that coin which was current at Alexandria all other Writers testifying that in Palestine they accounted otherwise then it is probable that Alexandrian Jews should do it So long then as I am peremptorily barred from believing the Translation which wee use to be the work of any LXXII sent from Jerusalem I shall accept of these inklings of historical truth that intitle the Egyptian Jews who first took up the Greek to it For as for the difference of Copies which I grant is very great in the Greek Bible I suppose no man in his right senses will argue that it is derived from any other Copies than one which by the wantonnesse of Copyists having suffered some change in lesse maters discovers the same plainsong by variety of descants that are framed upon it As for the credit of this Translation why should it be thought ever a whit the worse coming from the Egyptian Jews than those of Palestine My reason is I demand what there is to be found in all the writings of that Nation since the Prophets of like consequence to Christianity with that which the Jews of Aegypt have transmitted to us Why the Greek Bible should not be as well thought of coming from them as if it came from LXXII men sent from the High Priest at Jerusalem For here I set aside all prejudicate fansies and reports of inspiration by which it is said that there LXXII all translated the Law in the same words as meer fables I go to issue upon evidence of that which appears in this translation compared both with the present Jews Copy and other translations which the Church useth of many ages Onely I question why it should not be of as good credit coming from the Jews of Alexandria as from LXXII sent from Jerusalem The prejudice that is alleged against it is an addition to the Book of Esther in the Greek which sayes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the fourth year of the raign of Ptolomee and Cleopatra Dojitheus calling himself a Priest and Levite and Ptolomee his son brought the foresaid leter of Phrurim which you have in the Greek Bible after Esther VIII 12. translated as they said by Lysimachus son of Ptolomee of Jerusalem This Ptolomee and Cleopatra are those by whose permission Onias and Dositheus whether hee that is here named or another of that name Jews having faithfully served them in their warrs built a like Temple to that of Jerusalem in the Country of Heliopolis in Aegypt as Josephus contr Ap. II. Ant. XIII 6. testifieth Incurring thereby the like crime of Schism as the Samaritanes had committed in setting up their Temple on Mount Gerizim and undertaking to serve God there after Jerusalem was lawfully chosen for the place to which the Law confined Gods service And so this translation is supposed to come from the Jews of Aegypt when they were under that Schism and the sacrilege of it To which I answer that neither it doth appear by this addition to Esther which in one of these two Copies which the late Lord Primate of Ireland hath published out of the
communion with or obligation of dependance one upon another either in the Rule of Faith or service of God according to it wherein they may seem elder brothers to those who have put the like principle in practice among us though without supposing any other Rule of Faith then that which every Church so constituted shall agree to take for the sense of the Scriptures Now how soon it may come into the mind and agreement of a Church so constituted to take up the profession of Socinus for the Rule of their Faith I leave them that are capable to judge if yet we have no experience of it But I have observed by reading Socinus his Book de Christo Servatore one of the first if not the first of all the Books whereby he declared his heresie that being extreamly offended at his adversaries opinion he seems to have been thereby occasioned to fall upon another extream of denying the satisfaction of Christ and so by degrees his Godhead as the only peremptory principle to destroy the satisfaction of Christ and by consequence as well that reason of the Covenant of Grace which the Church as that which his adversary maintaineth Conceiving then his error about the Covenant of Grace to have occasioned his error in the Faith of the holy Trinity I conceive I shall handle the chiefe Controversies in Religion that divide the Church at present according to the title of my Book though I maintain not the faith of the Trinity against Socinus otherwise then as the maintenance of the Covenant of Grace grounded upon the satisfaction of Christ as that upon his Godhead shall require Another reason I had because this Heresie seems to be too learned to become popular among us though branches of it may come to have vogue For though there hath been but too much either of wit or Learning imployed in framing the Scriptures to the sense of it in the chiefe points of Christianity Yet is it hard to make the vulgar understanding not onely of hearers but of teachers such as these times allow capable of that sense to which they have framed the most eminent passages of the Scriptures and the grounds of it together with the consent and agreement of the severall points of Christianity among themselves according to it Upon this consideration I charge not my selfe with the maintenance of the Faith of the holy Trinity otherwise then as the consideration thereof shall be incident to resolve the nature of the Covenant of Grace which is the first part of my purpose Therefore that a few words may propose many and great difficulties from whence it comes and what it is that renders Christians acceptabe to God sand heirs of everlasting life who as men are his enemies by sinne here and â—ubjects of his wrath in the world to come this I conceive to be the sum of what we are to inquire Concerning in the first place that disposition of mind which qualifies a man for those blessings which the Gospel tenders upon that condition which the Covenant of Grace requires and in the second place whether this disposition be brought to passe in us by the free Grace of God and the helps which it provides or by the force of nature that is by that light of understanding and that freedom of choice which necessarily proceeds from the principles of mans nature It is well enough known how great dispute there is between them that professe the Reformation and the Church of Rome whether a man be justified before God in Christ by Faith alone or by Faith and Works both speaking of actuall righteousnesse or if we speak of habituall righteousnesse by Faith and Love For though the whole Garland of supernaturall vertues concurrs to the habituall righteousnesse of Christians which is universall to all objects actions Yet seeing the reason of them all is derived from that which Faith believeth and the intent of all referred to that service of God which love constraineth where Faith and Love are named there the rest may well be understood Whether Faith alone therefore or Faith and love so much the parties must in dispite of them remaine agreed in that there is some disposition or act of mans mind required by the Covenant of Grace as the condition that qualifieth a man at least for so much of that Promise which the Gospel tendreth as justification importeth But this being supposed and granted it may and must be disputed in what consideration it qualifieth for the same Which is to make short whether the inward worth of that disposition whatsoever it shall prove to be oblige Almighty God to reward it with that which the Gospel promiseth Or whether in consideration of the obedience of Christ performed in doing the message which he undertook of reconciling Man unto God he hath been pleased to proraise that reward which is without comparison more then can be due to that disposition which he requires as the condition to qualifie us for the promise Here must I relate the position of the Socinians concerning the intent of Christs comming Not to purchase at Gods hands those helps of Grace which inable Christians to become qualified for the promise which the Gospel tendreth which the Church with S. Austin in the dispute with the Pelagians cals therefore the Grace of Christ Not to reconcile us to God in the nature of a meritorious cause his obedience being the consideration for which God accepteth that disposition which qualifies us for the promise of the Gospel as the condition upon which he tenders it But to yield us sufficient reason both to perswade us of the truth of his message as by the rest of his works so especially by rising again from the dead and also to induce us to imbrace the Gospel by assuring us of the fulfilling of that promise to us which we see so eminently performed in him by that height to which we believe him to be exalted and then having induced us to undertake the Gospel of Christ to secure us both of protection against the enemies thereof here by that power which he that went before us in it hath obtained for that purpose and of our crown at the judgement to come And all this not in any consideration of the merits and sufferings of Christ but of Gods free Grace which alone moved him to deale with us by Christ to this effect and to propose a reward so unproportionable to our performance which would not redound to the account of his free Grace if it should be thought to have been purchased either by the satisfaction of Christ in regard of our sins to be redeemed or by his merits in regard of the reward to be purchased As for the matter of Justification by Faith alone it is to be observed that Socinus is obliged by the premises to understand that Grace for which the Gospel is called The Covenant of Grace to be no Grace of Christ that is to say not given out of any
Church I say there was reason for these orders supposing that Scholars were to be admitted Christians upon this presumption Otherwise none And hence it commeth that the assembly of the Church being first by a Synecdoche called in Latine Missa from the dismissing of it which it ends with as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine Collecta for the assembling of it the word Missa Latine as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is now come to signifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist which came after the dismissing of Learners but went afore the dismissing of believers being the principall office for which the Assemblies of the Church were held But I will remit those that would understand the weight of this argument to that which they may read in Clemens his Poedagogus where they shall find the conversation which the Church required of those who professed to be Scholars of Christianity and to stand for baptism described in all the parts of it Perhaps somewhat in the way of Plato his Common-wealth or Xenophons education of Cyrus expressing many times what should be rather than what was But still what the Church on the behalfe of God required at their hands till being come to the end of the book he who had approved himselfe by his conversation likely to make a good Christian is in the end of it inducted by the Chatechist into the Church to demand that baptism which by this time he hath learned what it charges him with And if this be not argument enough what the Church in Gods behalfe demands of them that would be Christians it will be in vain to apply reason to argue any thing that is questionable For it is visible that the time of any mans continuing Catechumenus or a Probationer in Christianity was required upon no other ground nor to any other purpose but that the Church might be reasonably or legally that is according to custome assured that the party pretending to baptism was really resolved to stand to that which Christianity should require at his hands This the conversation of severall years for triall the frequenting of Gods service in the Church the hatred which he needs must undergo from the enemies of the Church Jewes and Gentiles must needs signifie supposing Christians to be reasonable people But that exception which I alledged out of the Constitutions most clearly That if any mans zeal to Christianity should be found so fervent that there was no reason to suspect his sincerity then the regular time of continuing in the state and rank of Catechumenus or a Scholar of Christianity might be abridged by the Church For this is the same confideration which takes place in many penitentiall Canons of the Church afterwards That if any man should demonstrate that zeal and eagerness in detesting the offences through which he had failed which might ground a confidence of his sincerity for the future the regular time of his Penance might be abridged The ground whereof is to be seen in the example of S. Paul abating the rigor of his censure upon the incestuous person at Corinth though not only in consideration of the persons own zeal but of the Churches submission to acknowledge themselves parties to his crime for bearing him out against the censure due to it before And this indulgence consisting in the releasing or abating of regular penance is without all quession according to the will and word of God Consider further another custome of the Church during this primitive estate Many men that were convicted in their judgements of the truth of Christianity finding dâ—fficulty in undergoing the Crosse of Christ and persecution for Christianity at least willing to avoid it though they went so far as to professe themselves Probationers in Christianity yet went not so far as to pretend to Baptism least by being admitted to it they should make themselves liable to persecution as Christians These men if any thing fell out to make themselves liable to persecution as Christians These men if any thing fell out to make them think their lives to be in danger would nevertheless desire to be baptized in their beds of sickness Neither did the Church make any question of granting it presuming that those who by the hand of God had been driven to demand it would prove true to that which by such an exigent they had been driven to seek Nevertheless these are those Clinicâ— whom we read of in the ancient Records of the Church of whose salvation though there were that presumption in regard whereof they were admitted to baptism yet not without some scruple Upon what account Not because they were not so well drenched with water being baptized in their beds as others But because their resolution to abide by the Christianity which they professed at their baptisme was counted more questionable than theirs who had frankly without reservation abandoned themselves to it Tertullian in his Book De Bapt. cap. XIX argues that none should make hast to Baptism that are not provided of that resolution which the performance of that which they undertake by it requires And upon this account he advises to delay the baptism of Infants to mans estate nay of single persons because of the temptations to which they are subject till they resolve to serve God either in the state of virginity and widowhood or of wedlock What the consequence hereof is in the matter of baptizing Infants his reason must determine And that sufficiently appears to be upon the profession which Baptism undertaketh For that which he apprehendeth is that not having well understood and digested what it is they undertake they should fail in making it good And truly let any man tell me why there should be so much doubt made of the salvation of those that died before baptism in the ancient Church notwithstanding that they had professed not only to believe the truth of Christianity but also that they intended to undertake the profession of it and were indeed of the rank of Catechumeni Scholars or Probationers in it For it is manifest that aster persecution was ceased there were many and many who professing Christianity forbore neverthelesse to be baptized sometimes many years sometimes till death as we see by the great Constantine who having professed so long before the beliefe of Christianity was not baptized neverthelesse till a while before his death sometimes therefore were prevented by death and died unbaptized of whose salvation there was some difficulty made in conceiving full assurance as it appears by the arguments wherewith S. Ambrose comforts himselfe in the case of the Emperour Valentiniane and his brother Satyrus Not that there could remain any doubt in the salvation of those who having resolved to undertake and profess Christianity by being baptized should be intercepted and cut off by inevitable casualties of mortality not procured by those delayes which the want of zeal in that resolution had brought to pass For it is clear that those who suffered
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
of penance failing of that which they had undertaken by it What is reformation in the Church and what is not is the subject of this present dispute therefore I cannot here grant that which some of the reformation may have done to be well done Otherwise I am secure no man will choke me with naming a Church that had no discipline of penance But that so it was I refer my self to that which I have said in the first book I demand here what is the ground and reason that so it must be For supposing the Keys of Gods Kingdom exercised in the first place in limiting the terms upon which baptisme is granted not in ministring of it Of necessity it followeth that in the second place it be seen and exercised in limiting the terms upon which those that have failed of that which they undertook at their Baptism may be restored to the visible communion of the Church upon presumption that they are restored to the invisible communion of those promises which the Gospel tendreth Not supposing this there is no reason why it should signifie any more than a scene acted upon a stage as it is taken to signifie by those who understand not this Lastly I will mention here the expresse Doctrine of the Church of England in the beginning of the Catechism declaring three things to have been undertaken in behalfe of him that is baptized That he shall forsake the Devil and all his works the pomp and vanities of this world and the evil desires of the flesh and not to be seduced by him either from believing the faith of Christ or from keeping Gods Commandements And again in the admonition to the Sureties after Baptism you must remember that it is your parts and duties to see that these Infants be taught so soon as they shall be able to learn what a solemn vow promise and profession they have made by you For all that come to Christianity believing what promises they get right to by it and being admitted to it uppon those terms there can remain no question upon what terms they attain the said promises Nor can or ought any Doctrine of that Church to what purpose soever cautioned be interpreted to the prejudice of that wherein the salvation of all consisteth But further in the Introduction to the Office of Baptism For asmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin and that our Saviour Christ saith None can enter into the Kingdome of God except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost I beseech you to call upon God that these children may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost and received into Christs holy Church and be made lively members of the same Proceeding to pray That they comming to thy holy baptisme may receive remission of their sins by their spirituall regeneration In the exhortation after the Gospel Doubt ye not therefore but earnestly believe that he will likewise favourably receive these present Infants that he will imbrace them with the arms of his mercie that he will give unto them the blessing of eternall life and make them partakers of his everlasting Kingdome Again Ye have heard also that our L. Jesus Christ hath promised in his Gospel to grant all these things that ye have praied for And after the Sacrament Seeing now that these children be regenerate and graffed in the bodie of Christs congregation And again We yield thee heartie thanks that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit to receive him for thine own child by adoption and to incorporate him into thy holy Congregation All this can leave no doubt of the communion of the Church of England with the whole Church in this point so nearly concerning the salvation of all Christians 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 betwen the Old and New Testament inferreth the same So do the errors of Socinians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism Objections deferred THe whole tenor of the Scripture would afford matter of Argument to inforce this consequence But it shall be enough to have thus far pointed out the ground upon which the meaning of the rest is to proceed The reasons of this position from the principles of Christianity can be no other than those which have been touched upon occasion of treating the passages of Scripture hitherto alledged Yet to make the consequence still more evident I will here repeat first the consideration of Gods sending our Lord Christ to show the world sufficient motives why they should imbrace his Gospel as well as to teach them what it is and wherein it consisteth I will not here insist upon any supposition of the clear sufficience of the Scriptures or the necessity of Tradition besides the Scriptures But I will appeal to the common sense of all men to judge whether it be within the compass of reason that our Lord Christ should come to preach and to exhort men to acknowledge him to be come from God and to take up his Cross should show them reasons to believe that all which he preached is true that so they might be perswaded willingly to follow him Should give certain proofs of his rising again from death to inforce the same If men have no will no choice no freedom to do what he requires them or not to do it whether in other things they have it or not The same to be said of his Apostles and Disciples who were strange Creatures to expose their lives for a Warrant of the truth of what they said if they had not willingly and freely imbraced that profession themselves which they pretended to induce the world with the like freedome of choice to imbrace Thus far then we are assured by common sense that the condition required by the Covenant of Grace on our part must be some act of mans free choice the doing whereof at Gods demand must qualifie us for those promises which it tenders But this is not all that may appeare to common reason by the proceeding of our Lord and his Apostles The preaching of the Gospel-premises for a supposition upon which it proceedeth That mankind are become enemies unto God through sin and subjects of his wrath Proposing therepon the termes upon which they may be reconciled to God and intitled presently to and in due time possessed of everlasting happiness Suppose these terms purchased by the satisfaction of Christ though not granting it because all that call themselves Christians in the West do not is it possible to imagine that they who declare all mankind to be Gods enemies for sinne should have commission to declare them heires of his Kingdome not supposing them turned from sin to that righteousnesse which shall be as universally according to Gods will as their sin is against it As on the contrary supposing this do you not suppose
possessed by still silence and night was at the middle of her course thy almighty Word came from thy Royall Throne in heaven strong as a man of Warre into the midst of a Land to be destroyed bringing thy unâ—ained command like a sharp sword and standing filled aâ— with death while reaching to heaven he stood upon the earth The like you have in the Wisdome of the Sonne of Sirach when he proclaimeth that Wisdome which God brought forth and by which he made all things to be the Author of that Wisdome which he teacheth And in the additions to Jeremy under the name of Baruch in the Greek Bibles shewing the Israelites that they were in bondage for deserting that way of Wisdome which unknown to the Idolatrous Nations he that founded the Earth and ordained the rest of the World by Wisdome hath seen and made known to them addes immediately Baruch III. 12-15 this is our God nor shall any other be valued besides him He found out the way of Knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved Afterwards he appeared on â—arth and conversed with men Which words I much marvaile to see stand suspected to some great Scholars as foisted in by Christiane Copyists For what do they import more then that the Wisdome of God which dealt with men by the flesh of Christ dealt with them afore by the Prophets Which the Jewes themselves who deny the Wisdome of God to be incarnate in our Lord Christ cannot refuse This Wisdome of God this Word of God this Spirit of God this image of his glory this mirror of his substance by which he made the World coming to holy men by the ministery of Angels in whom it was resident for that service made them Gods friends and Prophets as coming to us in the flesh of Christ which he took never to let go it hath made us the children of God that is Christians This is indeed that great figure in which the eloquence of the Old Testament consisteth and may be called as by the Greek Fathers many times it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good husbandry of language intimating the way of Gods dispensing the knowledge oâ— himself which that time was capable of by such sparing expressions as being expounded by the appearance of our Lord Christ in the flesh may well make all doubt of the true intent of them to vanish And therefore I must needs applaude the practice of the Primitive Church related afore out of S. Athaâ—asius in Synopsi Scripturâ— and others to instruct the learners of Christistianity out of those books which we now call Apocrypha For by this point which cantaineth the summe of Christianity it doth appear as also by divers others it may appear that the Secret of Christianity folded up in the writings of the Prophets unfolded in the writings of the Apostles though the same for substance yet without disparagement to the Prophets because the counsaile of God required it is more clearly and plainly set forth in them then in the writings of the Prophets as the twilight is a degree to the light which the sun-rise bringeth with it What impressions of this sense may yet be discerned in the Jews writings I will not stand to inquire here where I write to all English so farre as they are capeable of those things wherein they are all concerned whether capable or not remitting the Readers that are capable to those that maintaine the truth of Christianity against the Jewes And to those things which Grotius upon the beginning of S. Johns Gospel whereof hitherto I maintaine the true meaning and upon other Texts which I have imployed to that purpose hath observed ouâ— of the Chaldee Paraphrase Philo the Jew and others of that nation besides diverse Heathen Philosophers whose sayings otherwise ungrounded seem to come from the sense of that people One thing I will observe which is very ordinary among their Ancient Doctors to call the Angel which speakes to the Fathers under the proper Name and in the person of God Metatron signifying neither more nor lesse then Metator in Latine as you may see in Buxtorfius his great Lexicon that is an harbinger or quartermaster of lodgings Whereof it is impossible to give so fit a reason as this That they understood him to be the fore-runner or harbinger of the Messias and therefore the Messias is our Lord Jesus The ancient Fathers of the Church having declared from the very mouth of the Apostles that those dispensations were managed by the Word of God now dwelling in our flesh as prefaces and praeludes to the incarnation of our Lord making way for it by the Ministery of the Prophets as Saint John the Baptist did at a nearer distance before his coming CHAP. XVII Answer to those texts of Scripture that seem to abate the true Godhead in Christ Of that creature whereof Christ is the first-borne and that which the Wisdome of God made That this beliefe is the originall Tradition of the Church What meanes this dispute furnisheth us with against the Arrians That it is reason to submit to revelation concerning the nature of God The use of reason is no way renounced by holding this Faith I Have in this defense given the true meaning to very many texts of Scripture that are alledged against the Faith of the Church Some remaine which I thinke fit to repeate and answer in this abridgment There be those that lay a great waight upon that of our Lord John XVII 3. This is eternal life to know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But the same exclusive onely or something of the same force is found in many other places 1 Cor. VIII 4 5 6. There is no other God but one Ephes IV. 6. One God and Father of all 1 Tim. II. 5. There is one God and one Mediator of God and man the man Christ Jesus And wheresoever we read the onely God or the onely wise God or the like The rest are not many that I shall name Mat. XXIV 36. Of that day and hower knoweth no man nor the Angels of heaven nor the Sonne but the Father alone Col. â— 15. The first-born of the whole creature Seemeth to ranck Christ with the creatures being of the same birth John XIV 28. The Father is greater then I. For answer to the first I will not insist that the words are to be construed thus This is eternall life to know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the onely true God Or thus To know thee onely to be the true God and to know Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent For the Greek article which the Latine wanteth the English punctually answereth determines the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the onely true God to go together as agreeing in the same case with thee that went afore But this I say that the exceptive onely can by no reason be understood to exclude the attribute of the true
in the stream then it was in the fountaine And therefore though the terms of the Scripture agreeing with those which the most ancient Fathers of the Church use may justly authorize and bring into use those expressions which have not been usuall upon a due understanding of the intent to which they are used yet is there no power in the Church to render those terms which have passed for Christian and Catholick in the Primitive times of the Church suspected of Heresie in these times Origen is strongly charged by the ancient times in particular by Epiphanius as the Seminary of the Arians And that the Arians might not have advantage by many of his sayings were too much to undertake and that which my businesse no way requires The Socinians have made their advantages of Erasmus his writings And is any man so silly as to imagine that Erasmus was therefore of Socinus his Faith Have they not made the like use of Maldonate and his Commentaries upon the Gospels And is there any appearance that his meaning should be that of Socinus I will not therefore deny that the Cardinall du Perron in his answer to King James pag. 633. does acknowledge that Arius were able to maintaine himself within compasse of Tradition were he to be tried by the Fathers before the Council of Nicaea But I give the Reader notice that this is the consequence and the interest of that position which deriveth Tradition of Faith from an expresse act of the present Church supposing the matter of it not to have been of force and effectually acknowledged in all ages of the Church Which if it were true in this case then could no man be obliged to believe the Trinity as matter of Faith Though it might remaine questionable whether or no a man may be obliged to conform to it as consistent with the Faith and not to scandalize the unity of the Church by rejecting the act and decree of it according to the Position setled in the first book I will further acknowledge that I have seen an answer to Crellius the Socinians book de Deo by one Botsaccus now of Danzick I take it in the end whereof I find a number of exceptions made by the Socinians in their writings which I have not seen against the Faith of all that writ before Constantine in particular as inconsistent with that of Nicaea the particulars whereof because I have not seen the books and therefore cannot presume to answer particularly I could not here repeate would the model of my book give leave In general whosoever will take the paines to peruse that which is there alledged shall perceive First that those who alledge them fall out among themselves perpetually sometimes and for some sayings challenging Tertulliane for example or Clement or Origen for one of them that believe not the Trinity otherwise disowning them as those that helped to introduce the Faith of it But no where remembring themselves concerned to make good that which they maintaine out of the words of Hegesippus in Eusebius that the Faith of the whole Church was defloured presently upon the death of the Apostles and to shew that such a change did indeed come to passe in the Faith of the holy Trinity Secondly that there is no more difficulty in reducing the sense of their sayings there questioned to the sense of the Church after the Councile of Nicaea then in reducing the sense of Athanasius when he alloweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood of the proceeding of the Sonne from the Father of everlasting Or the sense of all these Fathers that understood the Father is greater then I of the priviledge of the originall and author which the Father of necessity hath personally above the Sonne and the holy Ghost the Godhead being one and the same to the same sense One passage of Tertulliane I have thought worth the clearing because it seems to containe a remarkable conceit of his in expounding the words of Solomon in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the sense of the Church so many years before Arius built his heresie in a manner upon it The words are in his book contra Hermogenem Cap. III. Quia pater Deus est judex deus est non tamen ideo Pater semper judex semper quia Deus semper Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante Flium nec judex ante delictum Fuit autem tempus cum delictum filius non fuit quod judicem qui patrem Dominuâ— facâ—reâ— For God also is Father and God is judge and yet not alwayes Father and judge because alwayes God For neither could he be Father before a Sonne nor judge before sinne But there was a time when neither sinne was to make God a judge nor Sonne to make God a Father He that reads this onely would think at a blush that it is the very marke of Arius his haerâ—sie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was a time when the Son was not But the answer is in his book contra Praxeam Cap. V. Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus ipse sibi mundus locus omnia Solus autem quia nihil aliud extrinsecus prâ—ter illum Caeterum ne tunc quideâ— solus Habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso Rationem suam scilicet Rationalis enim Deus ratio in ipso prius ita in ipso omnia Quâ— ratio sensus ipsius est Hanc Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt quâ— vocabulâ— sermonem etiam appellamus Ideâ—que in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem â—aberi quia non sermonalis a principio sed rationalis Dâ—us etiam ante principium Et quia ipse quoque sermo ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suâ—m â—stendat Tamen sic nihil interest Nam â—tsi Deus nondum sermonem suum miserat proinde â—um cum ipsa in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat â—acite cogitando disputandâ— secum quae per sermonem mox erat dicturus Cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens sermonem eam efficiebat quâ—m sermone tractabat For before all things God was alone to himself both World and place and all But alone because without there was nothing besides him otherwise even then not alone For he had with him that which he had in him his reason forsooth For God is reasonable and reason was in him before and so all things This reason is his sense This the Greek calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which name also we call speech Therefore our people use for one translation to say that speech was in the beginning with God Whereas it is more pertinent that reason should be counted more ancient because God spokâ— it from the beginning but had reason even before the beginning And
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
figures hereof and read their bringing out of Egypt into the land of Promise and the maintainance of them in the inheritance thereof notwithstanding their enemies yea notwithstanding their frequent transgressing of it imputed to the Covenant with their Fathers believing with S. Paul that all Gods promises are yea and amen in Christ they cannot consequently make doubt to believe not onely that they are spiritually made good to Christians but also were spiâ—itually made good to them who lived the life of Christians under the faith of Christ to come during the Law in consideration of his merits and sufferings And therefore it is not for nothing that I insist upon this that not onely the giving of the Law but the ambassages by which God dealt with the Fathers and Prophets of old time were performed by the same Word of God which afterwards becoming incarnate is now our Lord Christ assuming for the time the ministery of an Angel that represented and bore the person of God in the likenesse of man As prefaces and preludes to his coming in our flesh not to leave it any more For if it pleased God to use this ministery in order to that which was to purchase of him that grace which should build the Church is it marvail if in consideration of his Sonne by whom this intercourse between God and man was managed he should grant those helps at that time which by the meanes of that knowledge which that intercourse maintained were effectuall to reduce them to that spirituall obedience to God which made them friends to God at that time And therefore I marvaile not that the ancient Church according to that which I said afore should make use of those bookes which now we call Apocrypha for the instruction of those whom by the name of Catechumeni they prepared for baptisme For in as much as we have in them those expresse testimonies which I have quoted of the Wisdome of God dealing with mankâ—nd from the fall of Adam to reduce them to the knowledge of God and to maintaine them in it insomuch it affordeth a necessary instruction to informe all that desire to be Christians by what means the world was saved before and after the Law and yet no salvation but by Christianity Which they that neglect will sooner betray the cause of our common Christianity then give a good account of so great a difficulty The Socinians for certaine will want footing against the Jews either in shewing how the Fathers were saved or why they are rejected It remaineth that I give a reason why the position of Socinus or of Pelagius in denying the grace of Christ as the cure of Originall sinne is not consistent with the grounds of Christianity which is to say that the account which they are able to give for the coming of our Lord Christ is not sufficient not reasonable because they deny this grace Socinus liberally granteth the grace of God in sending Christ to publish his Gospel and to assure all mankind that he is ready to pardon the sinnes of all that receive it and to give them eternall life living here as Christians undertake to do That having provided that our Lord Christ should be born of a Virgine by the holy Ghost of his free grace he hath exalted him to the power and honour of God under himself thereby both rewarding his undertaking and performing this ambassage above merit and assuring us both of the truth of the Gospel and of the performance of it to them that live conformable to Christs Crosse who have a man of our own kind indowed with Gods own power to deliver us from all enemies of our own free will believing his Gospel so tendered and living as it requireth But in all this neither he nor Pelagius who as I said in the beginning as freely acknowledgeth that grace of God which consisteth in giving the Gospel besides that free will which we come into the world with tenders us any account at all how it comes to passe that all mankind iâ— become enemy to God and subject to his wrath Which untill it be supposed to be true there is no cause why the Apostles and the Church after them should invite the world to undertake so much hardship as Christianity importeth And therefore S. Paul hath had care to set it forth as the ground of Christianity in the beginning of his Epistle to the Romanes For it will not serve the turn to have recourse to the examples of their predecessors and the nature of man apt to imitate them as a sufficient reason hereof seeing this reason can go no higher then Adam and that there is evidence that through the grace of God good examples of his posterity such as walked with God if not of himself as the book of Wisdome affirms X. 1. and we have no cause to doubt were performed before the eyes of them who notwithstanding imitated the apostasy which he disclaimed How then shall we imagine supposing a good and an evil branch in his posterity that the bad example should so be followed that all the world should runne after strange Gods Onely a few Fathers by that entercourse which God granted them of grace and the doctrine which came from their Fathers but to their Fathers by grace being preserved intire to God How comes the same to passe after the floud in the posterity of so just a man as Noe after such a horrible warning as the deluge Had the light of reason been such in discerning the difference between good and bad as the Law of Nature and by consequence the state of mans creation requireth had mans inclination been without any bias contrary to that which the light of reason such as it is shewes how could this have been How comes it to passe that the excellence of mans nature and the reason that he is endowed with serves for a reproach to all mankind that now follows it That those who see the difference of good and bad when they are alone without witnesse when they are under publick ingagements commit those oppressions upon men whereof they have no example even from beasts Doth not all the learning all the experience of the world thus farre give testimony to Christianity and shall we think fit to advantage our selves upon this plea against those that are not Christians and straight to deny the consequence of it to Christians Especially having the fall of Adam so evident a beginning of it set forth by Moses and the comming of Christ by S. Paul for the cure of it Thus farre then we plead from the motives of our common faith But when we come to measure the grace of Christ which is the cure by the person of Christ I suppose I have right to demand for true that which I have proved that he is God and man not by grace noâ— by reward but by birth And give notice to Pelagius that Socinus in a more cunning age of disputing found it requisite for
the maintenance of no necessity of grace because no originall sinne to deny Christ to be God incarnate that so the grace of God which the Covenant of Grace pretendeth may consist in Gods sending it not in Christs purchasing those helps whereby it is received and observed Which had Pelagius seen how consequent it is to his saying he who held the true faith of the holy Trinity would probably never have proceeded to deny the grace of Christ For would they have the Son of God born into the world and suffer death upon the Crosse on purpose to testifie the Gospel to be Gods message As if the Law had not been received before without it being recommended by such miraculous works of God that the Jews think there cannot be the like motives to believe that it is abrogated by Christianity Be their belief false sure we are Gods arme was not shortned to have no meanes in store to verify his Gospel but the death of his Sonne that he might rise againe to witnesse it For that it should be done to assure them who are perswaded that the Gospel is Gods message of the performance thereof on Gods part is rather a blasphemy then a reason In as much as he who doubts whether God will perform what he doubts not that he hath tied himself to by Covenant believes not God to be God And that we should be better assured of Christs protection because God hath freely bestowed upon him the honour and power of God then because he brought it in time into our flesh which he had from everlasting is a reason which no man can comprehend to be reasonable For whatsoever Grace comes to us by Christ the more originally and inseparably that it belongs to him the better it is assured upon us But one thing I demand of Pelagius aswell as of Socinus For as Socinus expresly grants the habituall grace of the holy Ghost to true Christians as necessary to inable them in performing what they undertake by their Christianity so I suppose Pelagius had the question been put to him would not have refused it I demand then whether a man in reason be more able to do the office of a Christian having undertaken it or to undertake it to wit sincerely while he is free from the ingagement of it That is whether a mans will be able inwardly to resolve without any help of Gods Spirit to do that which without the help of Gods Spirit he cannot performe I suppose the inward act according to all Divines and Philosophers amounts to one and the same in esteem with the outward and the beginning most difficult of all when the proposition of Christianity is most strange For a resolution upon mature debate of reason as in such a case and an engagement upon profession thereof is a meanes powerfull enough to carry a man to undergoe as much hardship as Christianity requires in a thing neither profitable nor pleasant If therefore to the performance of Christianity the assistance of Gods Spirit is requisite then because our nature is averse then much more to resolve us to it Whereby it appears that the same gift of the holy Ghost which being purchased by the obedience of Christ inabled the Apostles to do those things and say those words by which the world stands convict of the necessity of Christianity the same it is that effects the conviction of those who imbrace it and dwelling with them inables them to live in it according to the promise of God to his ancient people Esay LVIII 20. And as for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor thy seeds mouth nor thy seeds seeds mouth from this time for evermore With the like brevity will I plead the Tradition of the Church concerning the Grace of Christ evidencing the same by three particulars The first whereof shall be of the Baptisme of Infants which as there can be no reason for uâ—lesse we believe originall sinne So I do challenge that it could not have come to be a Law to the Church had not the Faith of the Church from the Apostles time supposed originall sinne First negatively from the proceeding of Pelagius He first a Monk in Britaine and traveling thence along to Rome afterwards either by himself or by his agent Coelestius to Constantinople and Carthage through Asia the lesse and Affrick the East Egypt and Palestine and not finding in all this vast compasse any Church in which it had not been accustomed to baptize infants shall any man be now so madde as to imagine that this can be discovered to have been taken up upon misprision or abuse the custome of the Church having been otherwise afore It is time that the mindes of men that are possest of their senses should be imployed about things within the compasse of reason and not to perswade themselves that they see what cannot be because they cannot answer all arguments that may be made against that which is and is to be seen Could Pelagius have found any footing to deny it he was not such an Idiot as to suffer himself at every turn to be choked by the Catholicks objecting the baptisme of Infants every where received in the Church who might easily have put them to silence by saying it was not an originall Catholick practise of the whole Church but the mistake that of some men which had prevailed by faction in some times and parts of the Church as I pretend hereby to maintaine the Reformation against the present Church of Rome Since that ingenious and learned heretick nor any of his complices hath been found to use this plea all men that intend not to renounce their common sense will justify me if I challenge positively S. Austines Rule in a particular of such moment as this is That seeing it is manifest that it was a law to the whole Church that Infants should be Baptized and that there can be assigned no originall of it from any expresse act of the Church in Councill or otherwise it is therby evident that it comes from the order of the Apostles The reason is the unity of the Church the principle upon which all this proceeds whereby it appeares that it is utterly impossible that a point of such importance to Christianity could have been admitted over all the world where Christians were without any opposition or faction to overcome the same had it not from the beginning been acknowledged to proceed from the common principle from which all Ecclesiasticall Law is derived to wit from the authority of our Lords Apostles the founders of the Church It is not my intent hereby to say that the Apostles order was that all should be baptized Infants whose parents were Christians afore Against which I find reasons alledged in Tertullianes book de Baptismo which I cannot deny to be considerable But that no
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
produceth the other freedome from bondage either to sin or righteousnesse Not that this state of proficience requires actual indifference which supposeth so great an inclination biasse as that of inbred concupiscence Not determining the will to any action or object but the acts thereof to those taints which the want of a due end right reason and therefore of just measure in a mans desire necessarily inferreth But because in passing from the bondage of sin to the love of righteousnesse it is necessary that a man go through an instance of indifference wherein his resolution shall balance betweene the love of true good and that which is counterfeit It is therefore to be acknowledged that in the state of innocence there had needed no other helpe then the knowledge of Gods will to inable men to performe whatsoever he should require Of the spheare of nature supposing Adam instituted and called onely to the uprightnesse and happinesse of this life or supernaturall supposing him instituted and called to the world to come For where no immoderate inclination of the sensuall appetite created any difficulty what should hinder the prosecution of a reason so unquestionable as the will of God is But is not therefore the knowledge of Gods will revealed by the gospell under reasons convincing man of his obligation to doe it upon the account of his utter misery or perfect happinesse the grace of Christ Knowing by the scriptures alleged before that the means of it are purchased by his crosse that where the reason is so convinced there cannot want motives sufficient to incline the will to make choice Not that I think those reasons not being necessary but onely sufficient would take place were they not managed by Gods spirit Whether for the dificulty of supernatural actions or for the contrary biasse of inbred concupiscence But because in the nature of a sufficient helpe they do actually inable a man to make choice though in regard of the difficulties which contrary inclinations create is is most certaine they would prove addle and void of effect were they not conducted by the grace of God which is called effectuall for the event of it Not that the nature of those helps which prevaile is any other then the nature of those which overcome not which I may well affirme if Jansenius though to the prejudice of his opinion can not deny it but because they are by the worke of providence presented in severall circumstances to severall dispositions and inclinations whether of Gods mere will and pleasure as he is Lord of all things or upon reason of reward or punishment in maters wherein he hath declared himself by the Covenant of Grace So that the same reasons and motives which in some prove void and frustrate coming to effect and reaching and attaining to the very doing of the work which they inable a man to doe it cannot â—e said according to this position of mine that God by the grace of Christ onely inableth to do what he requireth the will of man making the difference between him that doth it and him that doth it not but the very act as well as the ability of doing is duely ascribed to the worke of Gods Grace according to the articles agreed by the Church against Pelagius And this not onely under the Gospell but even under the Law For though I showed you in the first book that the law expressely tenders onely the promise of temporall happinesse in holding the land of Canaan for the reward of the outward and carnall observations thereof Yet I showed you also that in the meane time there was an other traffick in driving under hand between God and his people for the happinesse of the world to come upon their obedience to his Law for such reasons and to such an end and with such measures as he requireth Therefore The Law is spirituall according to S. Paul Rom VII 14. and a grace according to S. Iohn I. 16 17. When he saith Of his fulnesse wee have all received and grace for grace For the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ The grace of the Gospell instead of the grace of the Law And S. Paul againe speaketh of the things which are granted us by the Gospell not in wâ—rds taught by mans wisdome but by the Holy Ghost comparing spirituall things with spirituall things 1. Cor. II. 13. Signifying that he taught the Gospell out of the Law comparing the spirituall things of the Gospell as signified by the Law to the same spirituall things as revealed by Christ And againe when he saith Rom. I. 17. The righteousnesse of God is revealed in the Gospell from faith to faith His meaning is proceeding to the faith of Christ from that which was under the Law True iâ— is indeed and I acknowledge that this spirituall sense of the Law was not to be discovered in the Law nor was discovered under it without the revelation of Gods spirit that placed it there to his friends the Prophets and by them to their disciples and followers But the office of those Prophets being to call the people to the spirituall service of God obedience to his Law out of love which was the intent for which his spirit strove with them as with those before the floud Gen. VI. 2. Whereupon Noe is called the preacher of righteousnesse 2. Peter II. 5. it followes of necessity that there was meanes for them to learne to practice true righteousnesse seeing they are charged for resisting the spirit of God calling them to it S Steven in the seventh of the Acts insisteth not in convincing the Jewes of the truth of Christianity supposing it done by that which had passed but inferrs by all that long speech clearely this That as the Israelite refused Moses for a judge between him and the Israelite whom he wronged as the people were rebellious to him in the wildernesse and turned back in their hearts to Egypt so were they to the prophet whom Moses had foretold concluding therefore Ye stifnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye doe alwaies resisty the Holy Ghost as your fathers so you also Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute Killing those that foretold of the coming of that righteous one of whom you are now become the traytors and murtherers And our Lord when he telleth them that by honouring the memories of the Prophets and persecuting the Prophets and wise and Scribes Apostles whom he was sending them they owned themselves heires of them that killed the Prophets Mat. XXIII 29 37. showeth that the case was the same with the Prophets of old as with himselfe and his Apostles And whatsoever we read in the old Testament of the grace of God to that people in granting them his spirit or of their ungraciousnesse in resisting the same serves to prove the same purpose It is truly said indeed in rendring the reason why our Lord Christ came not till towards
to the intrinsecall value of the workes which freewill alone doth but to the promise annexed by God to the works which freewill by the help of Grace purchased by Christ produceth It was no marvaile indeed that they who had overseen the actuall helps of Grace should a scribe the merit of habituall grace so the language of that time spoke to the act of freewill in beginning to believe that is to be a Christian as not depending upon that operation of grace which themselves supposed though they oversaw it But it were ridiculous to think that he who by the preaching of the Gospel and the reasons which it letteth forth why men are to be Christians is effectually moved to become a Christian is not to impute his being so to that grace which preventeth him with those reasons How much more when those reasons are acknowledged to be the instrument whereby the Holy Ghost worketh a mans conversion at the first or his perseverance at the last is it necessary to impute it to the grace of Christ that is to those helps which God in regard to Christs death preventeth us with Surely should grace immediately determin the wil to it the effects that should be imputable to grace would be the same neither the cov of grace nor the experience of common sense remaining the same which wil not allow such a chang in a mans life as becoming a good christian of an enemy to Christs Crosse to succeed without an express change in the wil upon reasons convincing the judgement that this world is to be set behind the world to com It is now to be acknowledged that S. Austine writing against these mens positions as they were revealed to him by the letters of Prosper and Hilary his book now extant de Praedestinatione sanctorum de dono Perseverantiae hath determined the reason why one man is converted and persevereth unto death an other not to consist in nothing that can resolve into any act of mans will but ends in Gods free appointment That Pope Celestinus writing to the Bishops of Gaule upon the sollicitation of the same Prosper and Hilary in recommendation of S. Austines dostrine then so much questioned in those parts determines not onely the sufficience but the efficacy of the meanes of Grace to come from Gods Grace That the second councile of Orange determining the same in divers particulares concerning the conversion of man to become a true Christian concerning his perseverance to the end in that estate hath onely determined that by the helpe and assistance of Christ and the grace received in Baptisme a Christian may if he will faithfully labour fullfill whatsoever his salvation requireth Is there any thing in all this to signifie that a mans will before he determine is determined by God to imbrace Christianity and persevere in it to the end or not That every man is determined to everlasting glory or paine without consideration of those deeds of his for which at the last he shall be sentenced to it and either suffer or injoy it Here I must have recourse againe to Vossius his Collections finding them sufficient and my model not allowing me to say more Whether no helpe of Grace but that which takes effect be sufficient That is whether men refuse Christianity or faile of performing it because they could not imbrace and persevere in it or because they would not when they might let him that shall have perused what he hath collected in the second part of this seventh book say as to the perswasion of the whole Church Whether God would have all men to be saved and hath appointed the death of our Lord Christ to that intent let him that shall have perused the first part of the same Thesi II. III. give sentence what the Church hath allwaies believed No lesse manifest is it by that which he saith there parte II. thesi II. Parte III. thes I. II. that there is no reason to be given why any man sinneth or is damned because God would have it so On the contrary that the reason why a man is not saved to whom the Gospell is tendred is because he refuseth it which God for his part tendreth to all mankind In fine that the Catholike Church from the beginning believed no more then that those who should believe and persevere to the end good Christians were appointed by God to be saved Understanding this to be don by vertue of Gods Grace for which no reason can be rendred from any thing that a man can doe as preventing all his indeavours I acknowledg to appeare by that which he hath said Lib. VI. thes VIII When therefore S. Austine maintainneth as I have acknowledged that he doth mainetaine that the reason why one man is converted and perseveres unto death another not resolves into Gods meere appointment I will not dispute whether this be more then the whole Church delivereth for that which it is necessary to salvation to believe It is enough for me to maintaine that it seemeth to follow by good consequence of the best reasons that I can see from that sense of our Lord and his Apostles doctrine which the Church hath alwaies taught Which will allow me to maintaine as well the predetermination of the will as absolut predestination to glory and paine to be inconsistent as with the Covenant of Grace so with the Tradition of the Church I find that Gennadius being manifestly one of those in Gaule that contradicted some thing of S. Austines doctrine by his commending of Faustus and Cassiane and censuring not onely Prosper who confuted Cassianus but even S. Austine in his booke of Eclesiasticall writers in a certaine addition to that list of heresies which S. Jerom hath made reckoneth them in the list of the Heretickes condemned by the Church who teach absolute Predestination under the name of Predestinatians After him not onely Hincmarus of Rheims condemning Gotescalcus a Monk of his Province for maintayning it being transmitted to him by Rabanus of Ments who in a Synod there had condemned him for the same hath supposed it condemned for an heresy by the ancient Church but also before Hincmarus Arnobius that hath expounded the Psalms called Arnobius the younger by some and a certaine continuation of S. Hieromes Cronicle under the the name of Tiro Prosper the one contradicteth them the later mentions that they had their beginning from S. Austins writings Sirmondus also the learned Jesuite hath published a peece so ancient that pretending to make a list of Heresies it goeth no further then Nestorius reckoning next after him the Predestinatians as those who derived themselves from S. Austines doctrine To which it is well enough knowne what opposition is now made by them who believe not that there ever was any such Heresy but that the adversaries of S. Austine in Gaule do pretend that such a Sect did indeed rise upon misunderstanding his Doctrine And certainely there are properly no Heretickes
as to the Church but those whom the Church condemnes for some position which they had rather part with the Church then renounce Neither can it be said that ever there was any Sect expulsed the Church upon such cause That there was a Council held at Arles and after that another at Lions that decreed some thing about absolute predestination is as certaine as it is certaine that Faustus writ his book de gratia libero Arbitrio by commission from them for both are affirmed by the Preface which is of the same credit as the book But what was determined we cannot measure by the letter of Faustus to Lucidus which goes a longe with it Lucidus was a Priest whom Faustus moves to recant his opinion That God makes the greatest part of men on purpose to damne them This he does by a letter which he returnes to Faustus renouncing severall articles to that purpose but which he might have framed out of Faustus his book alwaies disowned For why might not Faustus be intrusted to write against the opinion and exceed his commission so far as to deny preventing grace And though Faustus his letter is subscribed by divers Bishops yet are they not the Councill nor do the subscriptions appeare in all copies As for the returne neither doth it appeare by the date nor by any other mark that it was approved or inacted by the Councill But granting it had the leter of Pope Celestine in â—avour of S. Austins doctrine must needs have given a check to the execution of it Which having decreed divers articles concerning the necessity of preventing grace in the end condemns the determining of difficult questions that incur upon the necessary dispute of preventing Grace And the II. council of Orange in the end is content to adde onely That if any man say that any man is predestinate to evill whether of sin or punishment the Synod declares him anathema Whereby as whatsoever Faustus or Cassiane might have said to the prejudice of preventing Grace is condemned by the Synod so that which the former Synod had said of predestination seems to be superseded and void by a greater authority of the See of Rome concurring with the Councile of Orange Which may be the reason why there is no further mention in antiquity oâ— the decrees of those Counciles which had they not decreed as some suppose Faustus would have heard of it by Maxentius who is so angry with the See of Rome that they made not the adversaries of S. Austin Hereticks I grant therefore that there was never any sect of Praedestinatians But I doe not therefore grant that ever there was any sect of Semipelagians Faustus or Cassiane might in opposition to absolute predestination mistake themselves so far as to deny prventing grace Some on the other side as he that writ the Treatise which Sirmondus his Praedestinatus confutes though some take it for his owne that confutes it might deserve the censure of those Counciles as the positions that prejudice preventing Grace are condemned by that of Orange and the writings of Cassiane and Faustus censured afterwards their persons remaining untouched upon conformity to the decree As for Godscalcus whom Hincmarus condemned by vertue of the Counciles of Arles and Lions which I think void I see there is opposition in point of right what ought to be held between Hincmarus and his party on the one side and Remigius of Lyons with his Whatsoever Godscalus his opinion truly was in point of fact And therefore the authority of the Church not being ingaged on either side I am at freedome to refuse absolut predestination to glory much more predetermination which is but one way to execute it admitting absolute predestination to grace And truly though I impute it for a charge to those that maintaine the determination of mans will by the immediate Act of God before it determine it selfe that they destroy freewill by pretending to maintaine it because the determining of it which they make the ground of freedome is indeed the ground of necessity which stands not with freedome which is no small fault in Divines yet as Christians I count them so much the lesse enemies to the Faith For in as much as they doe this under the pretense of establishing freedome it is manifest that they ground their salvation upon the Covenant of Grace which supposeth it And therefore think themselves notwithstanding obliged to apply their utmost indeavours to the fulfilling of it Though the difficulty of the question intangling and as it were maleficiating their understanding makes them imagine that it is maintained by that which indeed destroys it And therefore I cannot in the like manner excuse them who besides the predetermination of the will by God do hold that faith which onely justifieth to consist in believing that God predestinates to life in consideration of the obedience of Christ provided for the elect of God alone Because not requiring that voluntary conversion of the will of God for the condition oâ— the Covenant of Grace the revelation of the will of God aforesaid not implying any thing but the evidence of Gods word manifested by his spirit to that effâ—ct they disoblige themselves of imploying that freedome of the will which Christianity supposeth to perform that condition which Christianity requireth As if the losse of freedome from sin did infer the losse of freedome from necessity by vertue of originall concupiscence extending neverthelesse to the state of innocency In fine the free grace of God and the free-will of man belonging both to the foundation of Christianity there are two extremities to be argued in this question consisting in destroying the one out of a desire to preserve both which he that hath not in plaine termes destroys Christianity And therefore I blame not the determinations of the Councill of Orange that have secured us on the one hand against the merit of grace by works of nature But I find reason that we should be secured on the other hand against the determination of the will that introduces necessity to the overthrow of Christianity For it is possible for the understanding of him that desires to maintaine both grace and freewill to be so intricated with the difficulty of reconciling them both as to make the freedome of mans wil to depend upon the immediate act of Gods will determining it freely to act when it acteth out of pretense of maintaining the efficacy of Gods free grace wheras it is indeed no helpe of grace that inables not freely to doe what the Covenant of grace requireth I doe not therefore pardon our Presbyterians when they bring into their confession of faith which we must all be obliged to forsooth the determining of mans will by God having no waies secured us from the position of jâ—stifying faith to consist in beleiving that we are predestinate to life But I forwâ—rne their mis-led hearers that though they think themselves bound to pay them well for their
Moses is certainly a transcript or rude draught of this originall righteousnesse due from man to God And therefore purposely made so curiously scrupulous that even the earthly promises of the land of Canaan and temporall happinesse in it should not be obtained by the exact observation thereof as I observed afore But it was also an intimation of the Gospell of Christ not onely in the provision which it made for expiation of transgressions the signification whereof the greatest part never understood but in those grounds of assurance which it gave those that should observe it from the heart as before God and for his love of the reward of the world to come In which regard S. Paul and the Apostles so often alledge the saying of the Prophet Abac. II. 4. The just shall live by faith and Saint Paul Rom. I. 15. saith that the righteousnesse of God is revealed by the Gospel from faith to faith That is from the faâ—th of Christ to come to the faith of Christ come And Saint John Baptist saith of our Lord John I. 16. Of his fullnesse we have all received grace for grace Because the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ So that though the grace of the Gospel came by Christ yet it succeeded the same grace under the law though as under a fainter light so in a scarser measure And Saint Augustine rightly accounteth those that attaine truâ— righteousnesse under the law to belong to the New Testament as carnall Christians under the Gospell to the Oâ—d But if the faithfull at that time were saved by that scarse measure of righteousnesse which the faint light they were under required then were they also saved though not by fullfilling the originall Law of righteousnesse due from man to God yet by fulfilling that rule of Evangelicall righteousnesse which God under the Law required at their hands In which regard if the Fathers by things recorded of them in the Old Testament may be seene to have attained that perfection which Saint Paul calles his glory in doing that which he was not commanded as a meanes to the discharging of that wherein the perfection of Christians consisteth that which became mater of precept under the Gospel is necessarily to be taken for mater of counsell under the Law Alwayes understanding that as those helps of grace without which I have showed that they had not been able to performe such righteousnesse under the Law were granted even then in consideration of our Lord Christs interposing his mediation to the redeeming of mankind so was the righteousnesse then performed accepted in no consideration but of the obedience of Christ and his righteousnesse CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a work of labour and time The necessity and efficacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practise of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholicke Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice ANother dispute there is that makes an endlesse noise never to be decided but upon this ground not to be maintained admitting it That is Whether the workes of Christians merit heaven or not which I must inlarge into another point of so neer nature to it that both may as easily be resolved as the one Whether the humiliation for sinne in praying fasting giving â—lmes by Christians in confidence of the satisfaction of Christ to obtaine pardon of God be satisfactory for sinne or not For in as much as to be free from evill is good and to obtaine a discharge from punishment is as much as to deserve a reward in so much it is all one to satisfie for sinne so as to be discharged of punishment and to fulfill an obligation so as to claime a reward Whereupon as I said afore that all satisfaction is necessarily of the nature of merit To this question then or to these questions the answer is necessarily consequent from the premises That if we regard the originall law of God neither can any man make God satisfaction for his sinne nor merit the reward of everlasting life at his hands But if we regard that dispensation in it which the Gospel preacheth in consideration of the merits and satisfaction of our Lord Christ neither shall any man attain forgivenesse of sinne without making satisfaction for it nor the reward of everlasting life without making it due to him by virtue of Gods promise The proofe of the first point consists in all those passages of Scripture which require repentance as a condition requisite to the obtaining remission of sins whether in the New Testament or in the Old In as much as I have showed that the promiseâ— of the Gospel were obtained under the Law upon the same termes and conditions for substance as under the Gospel though for the measure proportionable to that light of knowledge and those helpes of Grace which the dispensation of God under the Old Law afforded In particular taking notice of the theme of Saint John Baptist which our Lord also took for the argument of his preaching Repent for the kingdome of heaven is at hand Mat. III. 2. IV. 17. Mark I. 15. which the Apostles also followed Acts II. 38. III. 19. Upon that ground which Saint Paul also debates in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romanes that the necessity of the Gospell and Christianity is grounded upon a supposition that both Jewes and Gentiles are liable to sinne without Christ and by consequence to judgement And againe of those texts of the Apostles writings wherein there is mention or intimation of Penance required or injoyned by them or by the Church in their time for the obtaining of remission of sinnes by the keyes which I have handled in another place And thirdly of those passages which I have quoted in this book disputing of Justification by faith to show that remission of sinnes done after baptisme is obtained for Christians by prayer joyned with fasting and giving of almes to move God to give us pardon as we forgive or give to our brethren But this proofe consists also in all those scriptures which I have alledged to show that the bloud of Christ and his sufferings are truly and properly satisfaction for the sinnes of mankind For as he that believes this can by no meanes imagine that any man can make satisfaction for his own sinnes by the originall Law of God for then the coming of Christ had been in vaine as not necessary neither had there needed that dispensation in Gods proceeding with mankind upon the originall rule of righteousnesse which the Gospel declareth So can he by no meanes imagine the satisfaction which any man can tender God for his sinne to import any more then the fulfilling of that condition which God by his Gospell requireth to qualify any man that
give not thine heritage for a reproach Joel II. 12-17 Sure this is something more then not allowing a mans self to sinne or not liking that which he does when he sinnes which no man that ever heard of Christianity can do till he have contracted such a custome of sinning that he is not sensible of any remorse for it And it is a thing most strange that those who pretend to be the cream of Christianity should think the sinnes of the regenerate not to forfeit the state of Grace nor contract Gods displeasure because they are done with dislike Judas might have robbed the poor so oft that at length he might be without remorse but certainly he betrayed not his master without reluctation The regenerate if truly so and not hypocrites must needs find the burthen of sinne which they commit aggravated by the grace which they had received afore And therefore must needs find themselves obliged to a deeper measure of humiliation to expiate their ingratitude and to recover the favour of God which they had forfeited by abusing it afore This seems in my opinion to perswade a good Christian that workes of humiliation and Penance are requisite to recover the state of Grace and to render God againe propitious to those that have fallen from the grace of their Baptisme As that which I said afore seemes to show that it is not prejudiciall to the satisfaction of our Lord should be satisfied by such meanes Now the originall and generall practice of Gods Church punctually agreeth with that which hath been said Our Lord preacheth repentance but admitteth all that professe it to be his disciples not taking cognizance what they had been professing to become such as he requireth for the future So his Church knowing that there is no sinne so deep that his bloud cannot wash away admitteth all to Baptisme declaring that without repentance it availeth onely to their damnation but demanding no visible satisfaction of it in them that were not hitherto of the Church But those who falsify the profession upon which they were admitted to Baptisme and that so visibly that the forfeiture of Gods grace is visible by the same meanes those were so excluded the communion of the Church which ought to suppose a presumption of the state of Grace at least the possibility of it that at the first the greatest question was whether they should be admitted to any hope of reconcilement by the Church or not As it appeareth by the breaches of the Montanists and Novatians and partly of the Donatists and Meletians If this admission were granted it was onely to this effect at the beginning that they might tender the Church satisfaction of the sincerity of that sorrow wherewith they pretended to satisfy God that is to appease his wrath and to recover his grace Those who think Penance was injoyned to no other effect in the ancient Church then to make satisfaction for the scandall which the notoriousnesse of sinne had contracted are as farre wide of the truth as those who think it onely made satisfaction for a debt of temporall punishment the staine of sinne and guilt of eternall punishment being abolished by submitting it to the Keyes of the Church out of that sorrow which they call Attrition which they will have to be changed into Contrition by the humility of that confession which submitteth a mans sinne to the keyes of the Church In what sense attrition may be said to be changed into contrition by the ministery of Penance I shall have occasion to debate againe in the third Book For the present I must not forget the ground which I have presupposed that the Gosspel is presupposed to the being and constitution of the Church And therefore that remission of sinnes by the Church and the ministery of Penance in the Church supposeth the accomplishment of that condition and the production of that disposition which by the Gospel qualifieth for remission of sinne Neither can the ministery of the Church be otherwise necessary then as it may be effectuall to produce the same How in the Penitent that sorrow for fear of punishment which the first sight of sinne necessarily causeth which is attrition in their termes is changed into that sorrow for having offended God which the love of God causeth is to be understood I conceive by that which I said afore That the ministery of the Church cannot supersede or dispense with the meanes whereby that change is brought to passe as the argument proposed evidences by the Scriptures So from the Tradition of the Church I conceive I have peremptory evidence For those that deferred their Penance till danger of death then confessing their sinnes submitted to the keyes of the Church though they were not refused reconcilement in that estate though they were admitted to the communion of the Eucharist yet their salvation remained questionable in case they survived not to perform their Penance This you shall find at large in Saint Augustine Homilia XLI ex L. though some attribute it to Saint Ambrose But you have it in Saint Augustine againe de Tempore sermone LVII And when it is found in a letter of Faustus in answer to Paulinus of Nola it cannot be excepted that Faustus is a suspected author because of his opposition to Saint Augustine in a point wherein it is evident that he concurreth with Saint Augustine But in the fourth Councill of Carthage also Can. VII and VIII those that submit to Penance and receive the Eucharist in danger of death are not to think themselves acquitted of their sinne if they survive sine manus impositione That is without performing their Penance during which they were at the service of the Church prayed for with imposition of hands And therefore he who having thus submitted to Penance and received the Eucharist recovered might be promoted to the Clergy according to the IV Councill of Toledo Can. LIII and Concil Gerund can IX Whereas whosoever had done Penance in the Church could never be admitted to the Clergy afterwards Because such a one had not been properly under Penance the sinne that is supposed in the case of the former Canon not being specified but onely generally confessed for sinne Whereby it appeareth sufficiently that in regard it is possible the sorrow wherewith a man submitteth to Penance in that case should be so sincere as to obtaine pardon at Gods hands therefore the communion was not refused But in regard of the doubt that remained in the businesse the Church warranted not the pardon till satisfied of his conversion by the performance of his Penance And therefore it is manifest that the ancient Church did not believe attrition to be changed into contrition by submitting to the Keyes of the Church making question of the salvation of those upon whom the Keyes of the Church had passed because the operation of Penance injoyned was prevented by death And so the practice of the ancient Church concurreth with the doctrine of the Apostles to
any now unlesse the signification thereof be fuâ—ther limited by other terms which being added to it every man will allow may determine a sense utterly prejudiciall to it True it is divers have observed that the word merâ—râ— in good Latine especially of those later ages in which the Fathers writ signifies no more then to attaine compasse or purchase Arguing from thence that the workes of Christians merit heaven in their sense and language no otherwise then because they are the meanes by which we attaine it So Cassander observes that S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. I. 13. is by S. Cyprian translated misericordiam merui not intending to say that S. Paul deserved that mercy which he professes to have received of Grace But onely to signify that he found mercy and attained it But though I should grant that this word may signify no more in the language of the Fathers yet the Faith and the sense out of which it is evident that they spake will inforce that it doth signify as much as I say when they speak of our coming to heaven by our workes For having once resolved that the Covenant of Grace renders life everlasting due by Gods promise to those that lâ—ve as at their Baptisme they undertook though not for the worth of their workes yet by the mercy of God in Christ which moved him to tender such a promise he that sayes a man attaines heaven by the meanes of those workes which he lives in like a Christian sayes that those workes of his do merit heaven in the sense that I challenge For as for those that will have the workes of Christians to merit heaven of their own intrinsicke value Of those I have already said that I conceive they do prejudice the Christian â—aith in not allowing the necessity of Gods grace through Christ in accepting the condition which the Gospel requires for such a reward as the intrinsick value of it cannot deserve by Gods originall law For granting those helps of Gods grace in Christ being supernaturall and heavenly to hold proportion and correspondence with the reward of life everlasting which is the same Yet will it not follow that in all regards for the purpose in that the actions which they produce are momentany the reward everlasting which is the consideration S. Paul uses Rom. VIII 18. 1 Cor. VII 17 18. the correspondence will produce an equality of value And though the first principle of them be heavenly and supernaturall which is the help which God for Christs sake allowes yet seeing that it comes not immediately to effect but by the meanes of the faculties of mans soule infected with originall concupiscence it cannot be said that they can demand a reward correspondent to heavenly grace alone when earthly weakness concurres to imbase and allay the value of that which it produceth But as it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome in which that Order which maintainâ—s this extremity hath so great credit allowes this doctrine of merit to be taught yet can it not be said to injoine it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have alwayes held otherwise Among whom I may very well name Sylvius now or lately Professor of Divinity at Doway who in his Commentaries upon the second part of Thomas Aquinas his Summe expounds that meritum de condigno which the Schoole attributes to the workes of Christians to be grounded in dignatione Dei because God vouchsafes and daignes to accept them whose they are as worthy of the reward expressing also the promise of the Gospell whereby this condescension of God is declared The Schoole Doctors found out the termes of meritum ex congruo ex condigno merit of congâ—uity and condignity Some of them because they thought That the workes of meer nature deserve supernaturall grace in regard that it is fit that God should reward him that doth his best with it That works done in the state of Grace are worth the Glory of the world to come But as the former part of the position which is planted upon these terms is rejected by many So they who onely acknowledge meritum congrui in workes done in the state of grace that is to say that it is fit for God to reward them with his kingdome say no more then that it was fit for God to promise such a reward Which whoso denieth must say that God hath promised that which it was unfit for him to promise And if the dignity of our works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daignes and vouchsafes it The Councill of Trent which hath inacted no reason why they are to be counted merits can neither bear out these high opinions nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point For The kingdom of God is not in word but in power if S. Paul say true And therefore though I affect not the terme of merit which divers of the Reformation do not reject Yet can I not think it so far from the truth so prejudiciall to the faith as the peevish opinions of those that allow not good workes necessary to salvation but as signes of Faith For that which necessarily comes in consideration with God in bestowing the reward which the condition he contracteth for must necessarily do though it cannot have the nature of merit because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christs death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the meritorious cause Nor can the glory of God or the merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our works that is grounded upon the merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his bloud The end of the Second Book Laus Deo OF THE LAWES OF The Church The Third BOOK CHAP. I. The Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods Service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot IF God had onely appointed the Profession of Christianity to be the condition qualifying for the world to come leaving to every mans judgment to determine what that Christianity is and wherein it consists which it is necessary to salvation hee professe and what that conversation is which his salvation requireth There had been no cause why I should go any further in this Dispute But having showed that God hath appointed the Sacrament of Baptisme to be a necessary means to salvation limiting thereby the profession of Christianity which hee requireth to be deposited and consigned in the hands of his Church whom hee hath trusted for the maintaining and propagating of it I have thereby showed that hee hath appointed all Christians to live in the Communion of the Church The effect of Baptisme being to admit unto full Communion in those Offices wherewith God is
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
all Ecclesiastical Writers do with one mouth bear witnesse to the presence of the Body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist Neither will any one of them be found to asscribe it to any thing but the Consecration or that to any Faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it And upon this account when they speak of the Elements supposing the Consecration to have passed upon them they alwaies call them by the name not of their bodily substance but of the body and bloud of Christ which they are become Justine in the place afore quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For wee take them not as common bread and drink but as our Saviour Jesus Christ being incarnate by the Word of God hath both flesh and bloud for our salvation so are wee taught that this food which thanks have been given for by the prayer of that Word which came from him by the change whereof are our bloud and flesh nourished is both the flesh and bloud of that incarnate Jesus Where by comparing the Eucharist with the flesh and bloud of Christ incarnate wherein divers of the Fathers have followed him hee justifies that reason of expounding This is my body this is my bloud which I have drawn from the communication of the properties of the several natures in our Lord Christ incarnate But chiefly you see the Elements are made the body and bloud of Christ by virtue of the Consecration as by the Incarnation humane flesh became the flesh and bloud of Christ So Irenâ—us IV. 34. Quemadmodum qui à terrâ— panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenà coelesti Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam â—am non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis â—â—bentia As the bread that comes from the earth receiving the invocation of God upon it is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the â—arâ—â—ly and the heavenly So also our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of rising again For hee had argued afore that because our flesh is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ which if they were not in the Eucharist it could not be therefore they shall rise again By virtue therefore of the conâ—ecration they are there not by the faith of him thâ—t receives according to henaeus Tertul. de Resur cap. VIII Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur ut anima de Deo saginetur The flesh feeds on the body and bloud of Christ that the soul may be fatned with God Origen in diver loc Hom. V. is the â—â—rst that adviâ—es to say with the Cenâ—uâ—ion when thou receiveâ—â— the Eucharist Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof For then the Lord comes under thy roof saith Origen S. Cyprian upon the Lords Prayer having said that Christ is our bread makes that the daily bread which wee pray for to wit in the Eucharist And in his book de lapsis makes it to be invading and laying violent hands upon the body of Christ for them who had fallen away in persecution to presse upon the Communion without Penance going afore The Council of Nicâ—a in Gelasius Cyzicenus II. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us not basely consider the bread and the cup set before us but lifting up our mindes let us conceive by faith that there lies upon that holy Table the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world sacrificed without sacrificing by Priests And that wee receiving truly his precious body and bloud S. Hilary de Trin. VIII censuring the Arians who would have the Son to be one with the Father as wee are maintains that wee are not onely by obedience of will but naturally united to Christ because as hee truly took our nature so wee truly take the flesh of his body in the Sacrament Our Lord having said My flesh is truly meat and my bloud truly drink And Hee that cats my flesh and drink my bloud dwells in mee and I in him And much more to the same purpose which could signifie nothing did not our bodies feeding upon the Elements feed upon that which is truly the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament or mystically not by virtue of our feeding which follows but by virtue of the Consecration which goes before For this natural union of the body with that which feeds it serves S. Hilary for the argument of that unity which the Son hath with the Father by nature being the union of our flesh with the flesh of Christ by virtue of our flesh united to the Word incarnate S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag IV. V. argueth that Christ having said of the bread and of the cup This is my body this is my bloud who otherwhiles changed water into wine wee are not to doubt that wee receive his body and bloud under the form of bread and wine And therefore wee are not to look on them as plain bread and wine but as the body and bloud of Christ hee having declared it All this by Sanctification of the Holy Ghost according to the Prayer of the Church But I will go no further in rehâ—arsing the texts of the Fathers which are to be found in all books of Controversies concerning this for the examination of them requires a volume on purpose It shall be enough that they all acknowledg the Elements to be changed translated and turned into the substance of Christs body and bloud though as in a Sacrament that is mystically Yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration not of his faith that receives On the other side that this change is to be understood with that abatement which the nature and substance of the Elements requires supposing it to remain the same as it was I will first presume from those very Authors which I have quoted For would not Justine have us take that for bread which hee saith wee are not to take for common bread when hee saith further that our bodies are nourished by it which by the flesh of our Lord they are not Would not Irenaeus have us think the Bread to be the earthly thing as well as the Body the heavenly when hee saies the Eucharist consists of both Tertullian ad Vxorem II. 5. perswades his wife not to marry a Gentile when hee is dead because when hee perceives her to receive the Eucharist and knows it to be bread hee believes it not to be that which Christians call it Origen when hee tells upon Mat. XV. 11. that it was called the bread of our Lorâ— gives no man in his wits occasion to think that the Elements vanish When hee saith further that it is not the bread but that which was said upon it which profits him that worthily receives it hee would have us take it for what it was whatsoever it is become S. Cyprian saith
comparison S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses in this case is sanctified by virtue of the Name of Christ remaining the same for sensible substance for I confidently maintain that the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroyes the sense as the comparison justifies for who sayes that the oile of the Chrisme or the water of Baptisme is changed for substance but for force changed into a spiritual virtue So also the water both that is exâ—rcized and that which Baptisme is done with not onely retains the worse but also receiveth sanctification Theodoret Dial. I. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord would have those that receive the divine mysteries not regard the nature of the things they see but upon the change of their names believe the change which grace effecteth For hee who called his natural body corn and bread and again named himself the Vine honours the visible Symboles with the name of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding his grace to it And Dial. II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For neither do the mystical signes after consecration depart from their own nature but remain in the same substance and figure and form and may be seen and touched as afore The Pâ—eface to the Romane Edition of these Dialogues â—aith that Theodoret uses this language because the Church had as yet decreed nothing in this point An excuse much like the censure of the Epistles of Isidore of Pâ—lusium printed at Anwerpe which are licenced as containing nothing contrary to faith oâ— good manners For if the Church is able to make new Articles of Faith then may whosoever licenses books passe this censure because by the act of the Church making that Faith which was not so afore the dead might incurr the contrary censure But supposing that the Church is not able to do such an act that which was not contrary to the Faith when Theodoret writ it can never be contrary to it I will end with Facundus because the formal terms of my opinion are contained in his words Sicut Sacramentum corporis sanguinis ejus quod est in pane poculo consecrato corpus ejus sanguinem dicimus non quòd propriè corpus ejus sit panis poculum sanguis sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum panem calicem quem discipulis tradidit corpus sanguinem suum vocavit As wee call the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup his body and bloud Not because the bread is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and bloud Whereupon our Lord himself also called the bread and cup which having blessed hee delivered to his disciples his body and bloud This is in few words the sense of the whole Church concerning this businesse Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna saith that the Gnosticks forbore the Eucharist because they believed not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins which the Lord raised again by his goodnesse But why believed they not this because they would not believe Transubstantiation or because they would not believe that our Lord Christ had flesh Let Tertullianâ— speak contra Marc. IV. Acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterùm vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset That bread which hee took and distributed to his disciples hee made his body saying This is my body That is the figure of my body But the figure it had not been if the truth of his body were not Otherwise an empty thing such as an apparition is â—ad not been capable of a figure For as Maximus saith in the third of those Dialogues against the Marcionists that go under Origens name what body and bloud was that whereof hee ministred the bread and the cup for signs and images commanding the Disciples to renew the remembrance of them by the â—ame As for that which is alleged out of Irenaeus I. 9. of Marcus the Magician and Heretick Pro calice enim vino mixto â—ingens se gratias agere in multum extendens sermâ—nem invocationis purpureum rubicundum apparere facit uâ— putetur ea Gratia ab eis quae sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius caliâ—em l. illum per invocationem ejus Making as though hee would give thanks for the cup mixed with wine and inlarging the word of invocation by which I said the Eucharist is consecrated to much length hee makes it to appear purple and red That men may think that Grace drops the bloud thereof from the Powers over all into that cup by the means of his invocation For had Irenaeus said that this Magician turned the wine into the substance of bloud in truth or in appearance it might have been alleged that the Christians whose Sacrament this Magician counterfeited though other Gnosticks as Ignatius saith quite balked the Eucharist and used it not believed that to be bodily bloud which is in the chalice and that therefore hee did it But when hee saith onely that hee made it appear purple and red perhaps hee used white wine which by juggling hee made seem red However there is no appearance that because hee made that look red which was in the cup therefore those Christians whom hee labored thereby to seduce did believe the bodily substance of Christs bloud to be in the Eucharist in stead of the substance of wine and under the dimensions of it It remains that I take notice in as few words as is possible of those contentions that have passed about this presence and the dissiculties which Transubstanhath found in getting the footing which it hath in the Western Church The book which Paschasius Radbertus Abbot of Corby near Arniens writ under the Sons of Charles the Great to prove that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is that same which was born of the Virgin is yet extant Though the more curious finde no such thing as Transubstantiation in it but rather a conceit of the impanation of Christs body if such a hideous term may passe that is that the God-head of our Lord Christ being by the operation of the Holy Ghost united to the elements the body and bloud of Christ is by the same means united to the fame A conceit not farr wide of that which Rupertus Abbot of Duitsh near Cullen about the year MCX teacheth that the bread is assumed by the Word of God to be his body as that is his body which was formed of the flesh of the Virgin Nor is there in effect much difference between this conceit and that of Consubstantiation at least according to those that ground
is admitted to Baptism is likewise invested with a right and due title to the promises of the Gospel remission of sâ—nnes and everlasting life As it may appear to all that hâ—ve contracted with the Church of England in Gods name that continuing in that which they professed and undertook on ttheir part at their Baptism they are â—ssured of no lesse by the Church And therefore this is and ought to be accounted that power of the Keyes by which men are admitted to the House of God which is his Church as S. Paul saith At least that part of it that is seen and exercised in this first office that the Church can minister to a Christian And seeing no man can challenge the priviledge of that communion to which he is admitted upon condition of that profession which Baptism supposed unlesse he proceed to live according to it it cannot seem strange that the same should be thought to be exercised in the celebration of the Eucharist as it is done with a purpose to communicate the Sacrament thereof to those that receive I shall desire any man that counts this sâ—râ—nge to consider that which I quoted even now out of Epiphanius That the Patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias being baptized by the Bishop put a considerable sum of Gold into his hand saying Offer for me For it is written Whatsoever ye bind on â—atrh shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be losed in heaven For so it follows in Epiphanius And when S. Cyprian blames or forbids offering up the names or offering up the Eucharist in the names of those that had fallen away from the Church in time of persecution till they were reconciled to the Church by Penance doth he not exercise the power of the Keyes in his hands by denying the benefit of those Prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with to them who had forfeited their right to it by failing of that which by their baptism they undertook As on the other side whosoever the Eucharist is offered for that is whosoever hath a part in those Prayers which it is celebrated with is thereby declared loose by the Church upon supposition that he is indeed what he professes And whatsoever Canons of the Church there are of which there are not a few which take order that the offerings of such or such shall or shall not be received they all proceed upon this suppoâ—â—tion that by the power of the Keys they are to be allowed or refused their part of benefit in the Communion of the Eucharist and the effects of iâ— For not to speak of what is by the corruption of men but what ought to be by the appointment of God it is manifest that the admission of a man to the communion of the Eucharist is an allowance of his Christianity as conâ—ormable to that which Baptism professeth though in no sâ—ate of the Church it is a sufficient and reasonable presumption that a man is indeed and before God intitled to the promises of the Gospel that he is admitted to the communion of the Eucharist by the Church because whatsoever profession the Church can receive may be counâ—erfeit But so that it is to be indeavoured by all means possible for the Church to use that the right of communicating with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not allowed any man by the Church but upon such terms and according to such laws that a man being qualified according to them may be really and indeed qualified for those promises which the Gospell tendreth Which being supposed every Christian must of necessity acknowledge how great and eminent a power the Lord hath trusted his Church with in celebrating and giving of the Eucharist when he is convinced to believe that the body and blood of Christ is thereby tendred him though mystically and as in a Sacrament yet so truly that the spirit of Christ is no lesse really present with it to inable the souls of all them that receive it with sincere Christianity then the Sacrament is to their bodies or then the same spirit is present in the flesh and bloud of Christ naturally being in the heavens For suppose that by faith alone without receiving this Sacrament a man is assured of the spirit of Christ as by faith alone understanding faith alone as S. Paul meant it I shall show that he may be assured of it yet if he have determined a visible act to be done to the due performance whereof he hath annexed a promise of the participation of the Spirit of Christ by our Spirit no lesse then of the body â—nd blood of Christ Sacramentally present by our bodies And if he hath made the doing of this a part of the Christianity which under the title of Faith alone inâ—iâ—leth to promises of the Gospell for who can be said to professe Christianity that owneth not such an Ordinâ—nce upon such a promise Then hath he determined and limited the truth of that faith which onely justifieth us at the beginning of every mans Christianity to the Sacrament of Baptism but in the proceeding of the same to that of the Eucharist These being the first Powers of the Church and having resolved from the beginning that the power of the Church extends to the deterâ—ining or limiting of any thing requisite to the communion of the Church the determination or limitation wherof by such an act as ought to have the force of Law to them that are of the Church becomes requisite to the communion of Christians in the offices of Gods service in unity I cannot see any of the controversies whereby we stand now divided that can deserve a place in our consideration before that of the Baptism of Infants For as it is a dispute belonging to the first and originall power of the Church to consider whether it extend so farre as when it is acknowledged that there is no written Law of God to that purpose that it may and justly hath provided that all the Children of Christian Parents be baptized Infants so it will apear to concern their salvation more immediately then other Laws limiting the exercise of the Churches power or the circumstances of exercising those offices of God service which it tendeth to determine can be thought to do But Before I come to dispute this point I will here take notice once more of the Book called the Doctrine of Baptisms one of the fruits of this blessed Reformation commonly attributed to the Master of a Colledge in Cambridge proving by a studied dispute that it was never intended by our Lord Christ and his Apostles that Christians should be Baptized at all That John indeed was sent to baptize with water but that the Baptism of Christ is baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire And so long as the Ceremonies of the Law were not abolished in point of fact though become void in point of right so long also baptism by water was practised by the Apostles as
by John the Baptist and his Disciples But that since then the continuance of Baptism by water in the Church is nothing else but an argument that it hath been destitute of Baptism by fire which is the Holy Ghost which this Reformation or forsooth this Dogmatist pretends to Which opinion obliges to mention again that of Sâ—cinus who allows no further of Baptism then of an indifferent Ceremony which the Church may use still at pleasure to solemnize the profession of Christianity when a man is converted from Infidelity to it as it was prescribed by our Lord to signifie the washing away of sinne from those who having been Jews and Gentiles were converted to be Christians But that the obligation thereof is utterly ceased in respect of those who being born of Christians and bred up in the Church have by the exercise of that Christianity which their yeares intitles them to made continual profession of it These two opinions like Samsons Foxes though â—ied together by the tails to set the Church on fire yet may proceed upon severall grounds For we know that Socinus denying Originall sinne hath reason enough to reject the baptism of men as well as of Infants as not acknowledging any thing but the will of man requisite to make him a good Christian and consequently suspending the premises of the Gospel onely upon that act thereof which resolveth a man to become a good Christian Which how well it agrees with Sovinus his acknowledgement of the gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that have made this resolution to â—â—able them to perform it is clear to them who shall have perused the premises to give sentence As for the other opinion last mentioned I must professe that I do not take upon me that it is his work who is said to be the Author of it though I name him upon common fame as an instance to evidence that there is no Church of God in England by the present Laws when there is no means to bring to light the Authors of such pestilent Doctrines and when those who pretend to be an University do acknowledge such a man Master of a Colledge partly of Divines as if they were an University they ought not to acknowledge as a Christian to wit belonging to the communion of the Church For though I mean not to charge him with this Book yet so long as he owns all that he is charged with by Rutherford the Scots Presbyterian I do charge him with the Heresie of the Antinomians which here I mention because it seems reasonable to conceive this opinion to be a branch of it wherein how well he is reâ—uted by his adversary how clear his adversary is of the same blame is to be judged by that which I have determined concerning the condition of the Covenâ—nt of Grace For the Heresie of the Antinomians consisting in voiding the condition of the Covenant of Grace it is free for them to make the justification of Christians to go before justifing faith being nothing else but the revelation of Gods mercy which he hath form everlasting for the Elect whom he determining to save sent Christ to redeâ—m them alone It seems therefore very consequent in reason to this position if that operation of the Spirit which they pretend admit any dispute of reason about their positions to say that the gift of the Holy Ghost being due to the Elect by virtue of Christs merits and sufferings provided for them alone and imputed to them alone from everlasting to the remission of sinnes There can be no reason why Baptism should be requisite Those that are not elect not standing in any capacity either of admitting the Gospel or attaining the promises of it those that are being from everlasting estated in the right of them Now if that Presbyterian make justifying faith to consist in the knowledgs of mans Predestination to life in consideration of Christ sent for him revealed to him by Gods Spirit but limited to take effect upon the said revelation of it as I have said that some of them do then I referre my selfe to that which I have said already to show this opinion to be no lesse destructive to Christianity then the former but not so agreeable to it self nor to reason to make remission of sins and salvation appointed them meerly in consideration of Christ to depend upon the revelation of Christ to them altogether impertinent to any act required of them to procure it But if he make justifying faith to consist in a confidence in God such as men may have that are assured of remission of sins and of life everlasting not supposing on their part any condition of turning from the world to God as requisite by the Gospel I referre my selfe still to that which I have said to show how this is destructive to Christianity But why those that have these opinions should neverthelesse maintain the necessity of Baptisme whereof they have no reason to give according to the Scriptures I confesse I am to learn For if we believe Christianity to come from God and therefore all the Laws of it how shall we believe that for one of these Laws he hath provided that all that will be saved be baptized having given assurance of remission of sins and salvation without consideration of it or dependance upon it He that comes to be Baptized either have saving faith or not if he have it he hath it never the more for being baptized being such an assurance as no man may doubt in without failing of all Gods promises If he have it noâ— can baptism bring it unlesse we say with the Church that the promise of the Holy Ghost depends upon it which he that saith if he will give a reason of what he saith must have recourse to the condition of the undertaking and professing of Christianity in consideration whereof God hath promised the gift of the Holy Ghost to inable Christians to perform that which they undertake This is then to say that though I take notice of these Heresies in this place where I purpose to speak of the power of the Church in baptizing yet I hold not my selfe obliged to say any more for the rooting of them out or preventing them then I have said in demonstrating the nature of the Covenant of Grace For I have showed on the one side that the condition required on our parts to undertake if we would be intitled to the promises which it tendreth consisteth in an act of our free choice whereby the course of our lives is dedicated to the service of God as the end for which wee were made and that this course is determined by the Law of Christianity and consequently the act whereby we undertake to professe Christianity called faith by S. Paul that which intitles us to remission of sins and everlasting life And I have showed on the other side that the nature of man being corrupted by the fall of our first Parents could not be
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
Covenant of Grace And supposing that excluding themselves from Gods mercy by sinning against the law of nature as I said in the second Book they are thereby necessarily excluded from all benefit of the second Covenant It is not because they were born under the benefit of it intitled thereunto by the same birth which makes them need it but because as by their birth they need it so by their birth supposing the coming of our Lord Christ they are onely capable of it Therefore it remains firme that though God by Christs death stand obliged to receive those that turn to Christianity yet the Covenant is not inacted till the party become obliged to it And so it remains that I answer negatively that whosoever hope charity may be allowed there is no legall assurance or presumption of salvation for Infants that depart afore Baptism If this will not serve unlesse I affirm where they are and in what estate I will affirm that I know not but I will affirm further that it is an effect of the tree of knowledge to demand a further answer being well resolved that God hath given none They that will not believe the Mystery of the Trinity till I demonstrate to them how three persons can subsist in one nature one in two natures must be Arians or Socinians for any thing that I have here said They that will not believe the Covenant of Grace till they have a reason why God hath taken such a course as will not save those whom he might have taken a course to save must for me be Pelagians or Stoicall Predestinations They that will not submit to the Baptism of Infants till I can tell them where thoâ—e are and in what estate that depart unbaptized must for me be Anabaptists But when that is done how will they be Christians unlesse Christianity preâ—end to resolvâ— these quesâ—ions before a man is obliged to be a Christian which no Christian can imagine I can easily say that they are not to be in the estate of them that are condemned to punishment answerable to their works seeing originall sinne howsoever foul is not the worke of him that hath it And he that undertakes to press me by the Scriptures will as soon be dumbe as he finds the torments of hell no where assigned by the Scriptures but to the works of those thâ—t actually tranâ—gress Gods Lâ—ws As for that condemnation of all mankind by the first Adam our of which it is recovered by the second Adam according to S. Paul Rom. V. I suppose all the world will allow that I acknowledge it whâ—n I allow not those Infants the Kingdom of God that deparâ— unbâ—ptizâ—d If it be â—â—id thâ—t Fulgentius in his Book de fide ad Petrum reckons it for a part of the Catholick faith that Infants departing without Baptism are in hell torments it will be as easie for me to say that Genâ—adius in his Book de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis acknowedges it not For though Gennadius was onâ— of thoâ—â— whose opinion concerning Grace was prohibited by the Council of Orange and that there is appearance enough that Fulgentius writ expresly to contradict him in the list of positions received by the Church yet seeing this point is not defined by the Councill much lâ—sse by any act of the Church against Pelagius still much lesse by any Tradition of the whole Church before and after Pelagius though it may pass for dogma Ecclesiasticum such a position as the Church alloweth to be held and professed yet it cannot be prâ—ssed for any part of the rule of faith which cannot but be acknowledged by all the Church I will add the words of Gregory Nazianzenâ— in the same Oration a litle afore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some delay for negligence others for covetousâ—esse others are in no capacity to receive it for infancy perhaps or some accident utterly involuntary whereby though they would they could not attain the Grace As therefore we found much difference among those so these They that wholly scorn it in deed are worse then the more covetous or negligent But these are worse then those who fail of the Gift for ignorance or constraint For constraint is no other thing then to fail against a mans will And I truly think that those shall be punished as for their other wickednesse so for neglecting Baptism Those also though lâ—sse because guilty of failing rather for folly then malice But that the last shall neither be punished nor glorified by the iust Judge as without malice though unsealed and suffering rather then doing harm For he who is not worthy of punishment is not therefore of honour as he that is not worthy of honour is not therefore of punishment And I consider also thiâ— If thou condemnest him for murther that would have murdered onely because he would without murdering let him that desired baptism without being baptized be counted baptized In this last câ—se supposing a mans resolution to be a Christian so compleat that only opportunity of being baptized is wanting I conclude with the Church sâ—nce Gregories time that there is no doubt in the salvation of such a one And that by virtue of his own words that Baptism is the Covenant of a new life which if a mans heart fully resolve upon between God and himselfe to doubt of his salvation because his baptism is prevented is contrary to S. Peter to ascribe his salvation to the cleansing of the flesh not to the profession of a good conscience In the mean time he who acknowledges that such a one is not punished for not being baptized though not glorified can neither allow the Kingdom of heaven to an Infant that dyes unbaptized nor condemn him for Original sinne which is for not being baptized As for the opinion of Pâ—lagius who because our Lord said Except ye be born of water and of the spirit ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of God granteth Infants that dye unbaptized noâ— to coâ—e to Gods Kingdom but would have thâ—m come to everlasting life neverthelâ—sse the Anabaptists may learn modeâ—ty of him in handling the Scriptures with reverence and not allowing regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost where the Church never allowed the Kingdom of God But on the other side when he maketh life everlasting which himselfe cannot â—istinguish from the Kingdom of God due to nature and birth he voideth the grace of Christ and the intent of his coming seeing nothing but their own choice can hinder men to attain that without Christ which is due to infants by their birth And if any man think to blast this with the reputation of Popery as the conscience of this time is to make that Popery which they understand noâ— â—nd may juâ—â—ly give reasonâ—ble and conscionable men a good opinion of Popery the imputation whereof is so brutishly abused what will he think oâ— himselfe when he finds himselfe in the company of so many Doctors of the Church of Rome as at this day
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
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
LXIII If a Clergy-man knowing that his wife hath committed adultery dismiss her not LXV Sodomites LXXI If a woman forsaking an adulterer whom she had married afore marry another LXXII If a Christian be slain or confiscate upon the information of a Christian LXXIII If a man accuse a Clergy-man to wit criminally as a subject a subject before secular Powers of a crime which he cannot prove LXXV We see by these very particulars an abatement of that which Tertullian stood upon that no adultery should ever be restored to communion again For here Penance is allowed adultery the first time by the VII And she that leaves her Husband and maryes another is allowed the communion in danger of death As also after her first Husband is dead by the IX And so are Virgines that turn Whores if afterwards they repent and abstain before death by the XIII So for murther a Christian Woman that kills her maid is admitted to Penance by the V. And a Catechumena that is a woman professing Christianity before Baptism that kills the childe conceived of adultery by the LXVIII So in Idolatry Those who onely wear such a Crown as those that sacrificed did wear but sacrifice not nor are at the charge of sacrificing by the LV. And truly that VII Canon which allowes Penance upon adultery onely the first time but refuses the communion of the second time even in danger of death is manifestly more severe then that Rule which divers of the Fathers Origen in Levit. XXV Hom. XV. S. Ambrose de Paenit II. 10. 11. S. Augustine Epist LIII LIV. Hanil L. do mention as in force and use at their time to wit that Penance cannot be done the second time For though a man be not readmitted to communion by Penance upon falling into the same or a more grievous crime the second time yet may be allowed the communion in danger of death Just as S. Ambrose ad Virginâ—â— Lapsam cap. VIII censures her to do Penance till death Innocent I. Pope Epist II. expresly affirms that this was done in consideration of the times because if men were lightly admitted after having fallen in persecution who would hazard life for the profession of his faith But that afterwards either the Church must be Novatians or grant Penance in danger of death And truly the breach which the Novatians made must needs oblige the Church to readmit unto communion in danger of death But if the Church were obliged to be strict when there was fear of persecution least all should fall away then was it obliged to abate when many were fallen away that the Body thereof might be recovered and restored And the words of Innocent that follow are sufficient to show how much the Church then presumed upon that Penance that Absolution that communion which a man was admitted to upon confession of sinne in danger of death For he saith Tribuetur ergo cum Poenitentiâ extrema Communio The last Communion therefore shall be allowed with Penaâ—ce Now it is evident by the Canons which Gratiane hath compiled XXVI Quaest VI. VII VIII Quaest VII cap I. that when a man was admitted to Penance upon confession in danger of death the communion was given him provisionally as well to obtain the grace of God to strengthen him in that exigent as for the quiet of his conscience but neverthelesse he stood bound over to perform the Penance which was or should be injoyned in case he recovered And therefore when Pope Caelestine I Epist I. invayes against those who refused Absolution and the communion in danger of death and Leo I. Pope Epist LIX orders that they be reconciled by giving them the Communion It is to be supposed that they understand this Penance to be injoyned in that case because the custome of the Church required it And this serves to void the doubt that may be made what the Keyes of the Church can have to do in the remitting of sinnes as soon as they are confessed which serve to loose sinne no further then they serve to procure and to create that disposition which qualifies for forgivenesse You saw afore in the second Book what difficulty the ancient Church made in warranting the salvation of those that repented upon their Death bed though they proceeded to submit themselves and their sinnes to the Keyes of the Church for their absolution and the communion of the Eucharist at their departure And though Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles cap. LXXX say freely that he is a Novation and not a Christian that presumes not faithfully of Gods mercifull purpose to save that which was lost even in him that departs upon confessing his sinne yet still this is but a presumption of what may be not a warrant of what is which the power of the Keyes regularly used promises Otherwise what would Gennadius say to the great Councill of Arles under Constantine which denies absolution in that case Can. I. as you see the Eliberitane Canons do True it is which S. Cyprian saith Nunquam sera est poenitentia si sit vera Repentance is never late if it be true But who will maintain that to be true which the terrour of death and remorse of conscience may rack out of him in whom the love of God and goodnesse hath not formed that resolution of maintaining his professed Christianity which makes God the end of all his actions when as all that is done in such a case by common experience may be imputed to a true grounded desire of avoiding punishment for his own sake with a superficiall desire of doing well for Gods sake Though on the other side it may be presumed that such a one is not first moved with dislike of his sinne when first he submits it to the Keyes of the Church but hath first done many such acts of sincere contrition as his own judgement directed him to for the gaining of Gods grace And at length to give himselfe further satisfaction resolves to humble himselfe not onely to the declaring of his own shame but to the undergoing of that Penance upon performance whereof the Rules of the Church also warrant his forgivenesse Between these contrary presumptions the primitive severity of the Church it appears refused absolution and the communion even in danger of death to some of the most grievous sins Which afterwards was thought fit to be abated Not proclaiming dispair to any sinner but to oblige him not lightly to presume upon pardon of that sinne which the Church could never presume that a man can repent him of enough For on the other side it appears what inconvenience the granting of reconcilement to all at the point of death may produce if the intent of the Church in binding over to Penance him that escapes be not understood Namely to give men cause to presume of pardon by the Church when the Keyes thereof cannot have their operation in producing the disposition that is requisite And thus the primitive practice of the Church
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
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
the Gospel requires which therefore may be obtained without the Ministery of the Church For if it be said that these persons would willingly undergo Penance upon condition of being restored to the Communion of the Church upon supposition that by the Ministery thereof they are restored to Gods grace and that therefore the desire of reconciliation by the Church supplies it as the desire of Baptism is accepted when it cannot be had If this be said I will allow that he who refuses the Ministery of the Church tendring him a reasonable presumption of attaining reconcilement with God by the means of it according to the just Laws of Christianity can have no cause to promise himselfe pardon without it In the mean time it is not the desire of reconcilement by the Church that qualifies him for remission of sinne but onely takes away the barre that hinders Gods grace to work that disposition in him which qualifies for it For if it be a part of Christianity to be a member of the Catholick Church then are not they capable of the promises made to Christians that will not seek them by the Ministery of the Church when and how farre and according as their Christianity shall oblige them to seek them To the same purpose I alledge also the second reason of S. Pauls indulgence and the effects of it in the practice of the primitive Church To wit the admitting of those that had committed Idolatry in time of persecution or who were otherwise born out in their sinnes by faction in the Church to communicate with the Church when in such cases there could be no presumption of sufficient disposition in the parties for forgivenesse from God but onely to avoid a breach in the Church of all things most prejudiciall to the generall good of the Body For can there be any appearance that the Church in such cases could be satisfied of the true and sufficient conversion of those that are admitted upon such terms when it is manifest that they are not admitted of choice but to avoid a further inconvenience Wherefore seeing the Church could not justifie the doing of it if there were not possibility of their being qualified for the Communon of the Church it follows that this possiblity consists in that the means of grace being sufficient for all within the Church may be effectual without the ministery thereof provided it be within the unity of it Here I must alledge the custome even of the primitive Church imposing no Penance upon Clergy-men â— that weae degraded for those crimes for which Laymen were reduced to Penance I remember the first Book de Synedris alledges this for an objection against the necessity of excommunication seeing it was not necessary for the Clergy Not considering that excommunication is abated by Penarice as Penance is abated by degradation in the Clergy But casting a foul aspersion upon the whole Church for imposing Penance upon the people when as nothing required it if the Clergy needed it not And this upon a mistake whether in point of fact or in point of right For it is not true that the Clergy were not subject to Penance especially in the first times of Christianity either when the crime was of a deeper nature then such as ordinary Laymen did Pehance for Or when a Clergy-man having been censured to communicate among the People which was degradation at that time relapsed Though afterwards they were remitted to do their Penance in private not bringing them before the Congregation for the prayers thereof with imposition of hands Neither is the reason which the ancient Canons give to be neglected in point of right For the losse of their rank in the Church being to them a rebuke whereof Lay Christians are not capable it is necessary that a difference should be made between them and the people Especially the interest of the Church requiring it in regard of another rule that no man that had done Penance should ever be admitted to the Clergy because of the common Christianity imbased in them who have done Penance which in those who are promoted to the Clergy is required of the best For those who for their qualities might best serve the Church if they had done Penance were ever after unserviceable iâ— not might be restored Whereby it appeateth that the Church presumed of them who knew their duty better then ordinary Christians that the loss of their rank would be sufficient to reduce them to true repentance without further constraint from the Church As afterwards they were trusted to do their Penance in private But this is full evidence that the Church did not think all sin incurable without the Keys of the Church For then the Church could not have referred the applying of the means of pardon which they procure to any presumption of any mans good conscience The like appears in the reconciling of Hereticks and Schismaticks to the unity of the Church by sholes that is by whole Churches at once upon whom as it is impossible to imagine that the discipline of Penance should passe so is it known upon evidence of Historicall truth that those who were not to be baptized again as some Heresies were by the Canons in force were admitted onely with Imposition of hands that is with the blessing of the Church acknowledging thenceforth to pray for them as Christians not as those for whom she prayes that they may become Christians Which not supposing possibility of pardon for them not undergoing the discipline of the Church could not have been granted I avow it to be truly said in this case that the Baptism received among Hereticks revives and comes to effect by this blessing of the Church For seeing that the onely necessary barre to the effect of it was the denying of that point of Christianity which distinguishes every Heresie from the Catholick Church or the destroying of the unity of the Church speaking of Schismaticks those that so return professing thenceforth the whole faith and maintaining the communion of the Church cannot be said to want any thing necessary to qualifie them for the promises of Christianity Seeing then this possibility is not grounded upon the Ministery of the Church which passes not upon them but upon the common profession of Christians made by them when they were baptized and the taking away of that barre which made it ineffectuall afore by returning to the unity of the Church though without any ministration of Penance neither can it be said that the disposition qualifying for remission of sinne is not to be attained in the Church without the Ministery of the Church by the discipline of Penance nor that it is attained by the desire of it but onely that the barre is removed by submitting to it A visible instance hereof I will propose in the reconciling of England to the Church of Rome in Q. Maries days an act of the highest nature that the power of the Keys could do And yet it is notorious that
they shall be forgiven them For sinnes cannot be forgiven without profession of amendment In which sentence this discretion is to be that we confesse daily and light sinnes to one anothers equalls believing that they are cured by their daily prayers But open the uncleannesse of greater leprosie to the Priest according to the Law and see them reconciled at his discretion how and how long he orders This is the very sense that I give the Apostles according to that strait communion Christians then held with Christians as members of the Church Why not rely upon the advice and prayers of Christians as Christians who are commanded to procure the salvation of Christians next their own in matters whereof they may be thought capable Therefore those sins which S. James directs the Priests to pray for are such as for the weight of them must resort to the Keyes of the Church for their cure But when Bede when Pope Innocent allows all Christians to anoint themselves or theirs with consecrated ovl when the Sermon de Tempore commands them to anoint their bodies when the Book de rectitudine Catholicae conversationis directs them to send for it from the Church it is manifest that they speak of Unction alone whereas S. James speaks of Unction joyned with the Keyes of the Church and that the Priests office is required in that case It is also manifest that Pope Innocent calls that unction a Sacrament which Christians give themselves which though he refuses Penitents yet those whom the Priest shall have given the Communion to could not be refused it Which referres remission of sinne to the Keyes of the Church but the hope of bodily health to the unction with prayer such as the case requires In the Penitentiall of Theodore of Canterbury thus it was read according to Buchardus his collection XVIII 14. Ab infirmis in periculo mortis positis per Presbyteros pura inquirenda est confessio peccatorum non tamen illis imponenda quantitas poenitentiae sed innotescenda cum amicorum orationibus studiis elemosynarum pondus poenitentiae sublevandum Ut si fortè migraverint ne obligati excommunicatione alieni vel ex consortio veniae fiant Aquo periculo si divinitus ereptus convaluerit poenitentiae modum à suo confessore impositum diligenter observet Et ideò secundùm Canonicam authoritatem ne illis â—anua pietatis clausa videntur orationibus consolationibus Ecclesiasticis sacrâ cum unctione olei animati juxta statuta sanctorum Patrum communione vietici reficiantur Of the sick that are in danger of death a clear confession of sins is to be demanded by the Priests yet is not the quantity of Penance to be imposed upon them but to be notified and the waight of it to be eased with the Prayers of their friends and zeal in giving alms That if they chance to depart they be not as bound by excommunication strangers and without the participation of paradox From which danger if God save him and he recover let him diligently observe that measure of Penance which his Confessor iâ—â—posed And therefore according to the authority of the Canons that the door of pity seem not shut upon them being comforted with the prayers and consolations of the Church with the holy ointing of oyl let them according to the constitutions of the Holy Fathers be refreshed with the communion of the Eucharist The same Burchardus XVIII 11. quotes that which follows out of the decrees of Pope Eusebius cap. X. in whose decretals now extant which Isidorus Mercator is thought to have forged I find it not But he who observes how proper the order which he prescribes in the case is to that which the former passage prescribed in that case may perhaps have reason to thinke that it is out of the same Penitentiall of Theodore and that the passage premised is the very order to which he referres Si quis poenitentiam petens dum sacerdos venerit fuerit officio linguae prinatus constitutum est ut si idonea testimonia habuerit quod ipse paenitentiam petisset ipse per motus aliquos suae voluntatis aliquod signum facere potest sacerdos impleat omnia sicut supra circa aegrotum poenitentiam scriptum est id est orationis dicat ungat eum sancto oleo Eucharistiam ei det post quam objerit ut caeteris fidelibus ei subministret If a man that demands Penance while the Priest is in coming be deprived of the office of his tongue it is decreed that if he have competent witnesse that he had demanded Penance and he by some motion is ablo to make some sign of his will the Priest fully do all that is written afore about the sick under Penance That is say the Prayers and anoint him with the consecrated oyl and give him the Eucharist and when he is dead do service for him as for other believers By these remarkable passages you see that even when Penance and the Unction both were ministred and prescribed to be ministred by the Priest bodily health was expected from the Unction remission of sinnes from the Keyes of the Church How much more having showed by Pope Innocent and venerable Bede and others that the anointing of themselves and theirs was referred to particular Christians is there reason to presume that this was done in case when there was no question of binding and loosing sinne by the Keyes of the Church We have lately published at Paris a Leter of Amulo Bishop of Lions under Carolus Calvus next successor to Agobardus concerning some forged reliques pretending that fits of convulsions and Epilepsies were stirred at the presence of them for evidence that they were cured by them as true reliques To which he saith Si autem languores aliqui ac debilitates accidunt juxta Evangelicum Apostolicum praeceptum praesto habet unusquisque ut inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super cum ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infirmum But if any sicknesse or infirmity happen it is ready for every man according to the precept of the Gospell and Apostle to bring in the Priests of the Church that they may pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick Here because the occasion is publick and notorious to the Church the Prayers of the Priest are directed though without reference to the ministery of the Keyes Certainly Proculus the Christian that cured Antoninus Son of Severus the Emperour by anointing with oyle according to Tertullian ad Scapulam IV. did it not as a Priest which he did to an Infidel but as a private Christian having hope in God by himself to make his presence in the Church appear Onely this difference we find that whereas Proculus did this as a simple Christian indowed with one of those miraculous graces whereby God manifested
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
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
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
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
whole Church departing from their rigour in consideration of it In the mean time it must not be neglected that Rome having Dionysius of Alexandria to side with it was able to weigh against so great a consent Which giveth no leave to abate any thing of the regular pre-eminence of it above other Churches But when we see that neither Rome prevailed that no Hereticks should be rebaptized nor the adverse party that all but an abatement is made by the Council of Nicaea in rebaptizing Samosatenians of Laodicea in rebaptizing Moâ—tanists by the Churches of Africk the practice whereof Optatus relateth in rebaptizing Sabellians to say nothing of other Rules mentioned in the first Book did they take shall we say the breast of the Pope for the cenâ—er of infallibility in the Church and the voice of the whole Church for evidence of Tradition from the Apostles or the sentence thereof to be without appeal in maters not determined by it Neither will I passe by that litle that we have upon record in the case of Dionysius of Alexandria complained of to Dionysius of Rome as inclining to that which was afterwards the Heresy of Arius in things that he had written against Sabellius Without observing not as most do that in so great a case recourse is had to the Church of Rome and to no Church besides it but that there is no remembrance left of any recourse had to other Churches when as there is remembrance of the recourse that was had to the Church of Rome in it For iâ— appeareth by the course that was held in other cases that the ordinary way was to communicate maters concerning the common interest with as many Churches as there was convenience to do As expecting reâ—ress by their conâ—urrence and assistance And therefore I count it ridiculous to suppose that a â—ater of so great concernment was not referred to any but the Bishop of Rome because it is not recorded of any besides it For what reason or sense is there to expect thâ—t when we are so scâ—nâ—ed of records in the first ages of the Church we should â—ind in every particular businesse remembrance of that which was alwayes done But when in this as in all other cases which I have touched you find recourse alwayes had to the Church of Rome but very little or no mention of other Churches in the West especially though concerned in the mater as much as it shall we not take it for an argument that they usually referred themselves to the Church of Rome expecting satisfaction in their common interests from the trust which they reposed in it In the mater of Samosatenus there are two passages expresly signifying the two chief points of my position Read the leter of the Synod giving account of their proceedings to all Churches and tell me who can have the confidence to maintain that the force of their sentence depended onely upon the Popes allowance It is true the leter is written on purpose to obtain the consent of other Churches by giving them account of their proceedings For they did noâ— presume of the justice of them upon any visible circumstance of the persons place maner or form in which they were assembled This they expected from the mater and ground of their sentence and the way of proceeding to it But when the same account that is given to Rome is given to other Churches evâ—ry one as they were of consequence to the Whole neither can the approbâ—tion of one be supposed to oblige the Whole nor doth any thing hinder it to be held for the Head or prime part of the Whole and of most consequence to sway the resolution of the whole in which the presumption that the sentence is according to right becometh compleat But when the seculâ—r Power is called upon to give execution to it by the force of this World Aureliane the Emperour suspendeth his proceeding upon the resolution of Rome and Italy Whereby he sheweth that these were held to be of most regard and consequence in maters that concerned the whole For seeing Aureliane at that time having a good opinion of Christians whom a while after he persecuted determined to do them a favour in quiâ—ting their differences by way of right it cannot be imagined that he would take a course which they should refuse but such as the order of the Church established before did require And therefore the allowance of the Bishops of Rome and Italy is expressed for a just presumption that an act done by such a Synod and afterwards acknowledged by them could not be disowned by the rest of the Church In the mean time when he names the Bishops of Rome and Italy I must not omit an opinion that hath been published many years since because it seems considerable The ground whereof is this That Sex Aurelius Victor Epit. in Adrianâ— reports that the Government of the Romane Empire which was afterwards established by Constantine was first moulded and framed in the most materiall points of it by Adriane Whereupon it becomes probable that when Aureliane refers himselfe to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome and Italy the meaning is to the Bishops of Rome and Milane and the rest of those Churches that resorted unto Rome and Milane as the chief Churches upon which they depended For that after Constantine Milane was the Head of all the rest of those Provinces of Italy that reâ—orted not to the Church of Rome it is so manifest that I will not trouble the Reader with proving it here again There are besides some cases mentioned in S. Cyprians Epistles of great force to clear the terms upon which the unity of the Church subsisted as well as the being and constitution of it which some of them have been already alleged to evidence Basilides Bishop of Asturica in Spain convicted of Apostasy in persecution to the worship of Idols was deposed by the Bishops of those quarters and another setled in his stead He repairs to Stephen Bishop of Rome to obtain by false information and favour his sentence to restore or to confirm him S. Cyprian excuses Stephen as circumvented blaming him thâ— did it but not for going to Rome or seeking to be restored by that means For to say truth he must have blamed the contrary party that had recourse to Carthage seeking to maintain what they had done by the sentence of the Church of Carthagâ— which that LXVIII Epistle caries as well for Martialis Bishop it seems of Emerita in Spain as Basilides whom for the like crime he judges unworthy to hold his Bishoprick Again Martianus Bishop of Arles adhered to Novatiaâ—us as S. Cyprian was informed by the Bishop of Lions Hereupon he writes to Stephen at Rome to write into Gaul for the deposing of Marcianus and the settling of another in his stead Epist LXVII Again Felicissimus and Fortunaâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Carâ—hage under S. Cyprian with others to the number of five having made a party
neither be clear nor evident unlesse â— limite the greatness of Churches by such degrees as took place afterwards when Constantine having put the civill Government of the Empie under some Praefectis Prâ—torio whom we may call in English Masters of his Palace appointed every one of them several Lieutenants in their severall quarters As him of Gaul to speak of the West which concernâ— us most one in Britain one in Gaul and one in Spain Him of Italy one at Rome one at Milane and one at Carthage in Africk which was laid to that Government Him of the East one at Alexandria for Aegypt one at Antiochia for that quarter which was properly called the East of the Empire one at Casarsa for Pontus one at Ephesâ—s for Asia and one at Constantinople for Thrace And him of Illyricum one for the East of it at Thessalonica one for the West of it at Sirmium For every one of these Lieutenants having under his disposition a certain mass or number of Provinces and every one of these Provinces a certain chief City the seat of the civill Government as well as the chief Church of the Province and the residences of the Lieutenants themselves being the resorts of the appeals out of the Provinces the Rule of the Church remains setled by the subject of it the Churches of the Head Cities of every Diocese so theycalled that Mass of Provinces which was allotted to each Lieutenant challenging a regular pre-eminence over the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces as they over the Churches of ordinary Cities within the same Province But as it would be ridiculous to attribute these pre-eminences to the secular Power because it createth the civill pre-eminences of the Cities and not to the Church which presupposing the act of civill Power cast it selfe into the like foâ—m for the same rule was in force when the Empire enemy to the Church did nothing in it So I shall challenge all men that have their senses exercised to discern of such maters to judge whither all Christians could have agreed of their own heads to yeeld these pre-eminences had they not found the rule delivered them by the Apostles to require it For it is manifest that from the beginning afore Constantine there was respect had to the pre-eminence of Churches proportionably to the greatnesse of their Cities in the Government of the Empire The instances of Rome Alexandria Anâ—iochia Ephesus Corinth Thessalonica Câ—sarea Carthage Milane Lions and others as others come to be mentioned in the records of the Church not admitting any visible exception to a rule so originally so generally so evidently received Therefore as for that plea which the Church of Rome advanceth so farre beyond reason and measure of S. Peters Headship by divine right of his sitting last at Rome before at Antiochia and by his Deputy S. Mark at Alexandria as if all the Churches of Asia Africk and Europe were by this means of his lot if we take it as it sounds it will appear a contradiction to the light of common reason that the Church of Rome should have that pre-eminence by being the seat of the first Apostle to which other Churches have nothing proportionable by having been the seats of other Apostles For had there not been more in the case that which Epiphanius Haer. LXX saith That had the controversie about keeping Easter risen before the removing of the Church of Jerusalem to Pella at the beginning under the Apostles it must have resorted thither must have taken place alwayes That is the Church of Jerusalem which was at the first the seat of all the Apostles must have been for ever the chiefe Church But if we suppose that the Apostles order was the greatest Churches to be those of the greatest Cities we give a reason of the greatnesse of the Church of Rome from the priviledge not of S. Peter alone but of S. Peter as the chief Apostle and as S. Paul as him that laboured most when they upon that agreement made choice of Rome for their seat and the exercise of their Apostleship But that the Church of Alexandria the priviledges whereof never extended beyond the Diocese of the Governour of Aegypt Lieutenant in that quarter should have right over all the Churches of Africk that the Church of Antiochia the priviledges whereof were never visible beyond the Diocese of the East should have right over all the Churches of Asia by S. Peters Headship and yet Alexandria where he never sat but in and by S. Mark before Antiochia where he sat in person seven years is such a devise as nothing but prejudice and faction can make probable For the right then of summoning and ordering Councils if we speak of Provincial Councils it is manifestly in the Bishop of the Mother City which succession hath called the Archbishop If of a greater resort in the first Bishop of a Diocese called since the Primate If it were gathered out of severall Dioceses whereof we have an instance in that of Antiochia against Samosatenus out of Pontus and Asia as well as the East it is to be ascribed to the authority of the greatest and next Bishop concurring to quench the fire in their neighbour Church as Firmilianus of Caesarea and Macarius of Jerusalem were presidents in that of Antiochia For though the priviledges of the Church were setled upon the form of the Empire yet it seemeth thâ—re was alwayes an exception for that of Jerusalem as having been the Mother Church before the Rule was to take place not onely by the Canon of Nicaa which now I come to but by the act of Chalcedon which made it absolute within certain quarters utterly exempted from Antiochia by a concordate confirmed in Council The Canon of Nicaea which I spoke of is thought to have been made upon occasion of the Schism of Meletius in Aegypt which had with-drawn the Churches there from their obedience to Alexandria For it orders that the ancient rights thereof be maintained as also those of Antiochia with an exception for Jerusalâ—m saving the respect due to the Mother Sea of Caesarea because the Church of Rome also hath the like priviledge over these Churches which Ruffinâ—s in his Histories of the Church translates Suburbicarias This Translâ—tion hath occasioned many Books to show what were these Ecelesiae subâ—â—bicariae whereof it seems there are but three meanings possible There was then a â—overnour of the City of Rome to whom resorted all appeals from the Magistrates of the City and within a hundred miles all which Country being comprised in one title of Regiones suburbicariae there is an opinion that the Churches of that Precinct by the name of Ecclesiae suburbicariae were then of the Popes Jurisdiction and they alone Another conceit may be that urbs in the 〈…〉 ivative suburbicariae is opposed to Orbis and all Churches in the World â—â—bjâ—cted by the Canon to the Church of Rome as all Cities were to Rome Wâ—iâ—h â—â— for
offices of that Christianity which they either died in or for whatsoever they may pretend of their zeal for Christianity cannot pretend towards that Christianity in and for which they either lived or died For to what purpose rendeth that Christianity the seeds whereof were sown in their lives and examples or in their deaths and sufferings but that God may be glorified in the service of his name by those that do study to imitate those paterns thereof which they have set us I deny not that there may come a burthen upon the Church by multiplying the number of Festivall days and that there might be and was reason why it should be abated But never that there is superstition either in the service of God or in the circumstance of it and occasion of celebrating it upon the remembrance of Gods Saints Neither will I say any more for the Fasts of Ember weeks and of the Rogations since I understand not what quarel there can be to the occasions of them in particular if it were agreed that there is due ground for the setting apart of certain times for the service of God whither as Fasts or Festivalls Nor of the Hours of the day or the deputing of them to the service of God whither in publick or in privivate For what wil those that pretend so much to the Scriptures answer to those testimonies of the Old and New Testament whereby I have proved that the people of God did set aside the third sixth and ninth hour of the day for that purpose That the Apostles of our Lord followed the same custome That the Church hath alwayes done the same All this while supposing morning and evening Prayer over and above as brought in by Adam or by Abraham as the Jews will have it whereupon the Christians in S. Cyprianes time as appears by his Book de Oratione had recourse to God five times a day Till afterwards as it is fit that Christianity go beyond Judaism in the service of God the custome being taken up by the more devout whereof S. Cypriane makes mention in the same place of rising by night to praise God according to the Prophet David Psalm CXIX 64. At midnight I will rise to praise thee because of thy righteous Judgements And the evening service requiring some exercise as well at going to bed as in closing the evening which was called the Compline as the complement of the days service the service of God whither publick or private became divided into seven Houres which upon these grounds were very reasonably counted Canonical according to the same Pâ—ophet David Psalm CXIX 164. Seven times a day will I praise thee because of thy righteous Judgements In fine there can no question be made that the Law oâ— regular Hours of the day for Prayer is evidently grounded upon the Scriptures evidently authorized by the practice not onely of the Church but of Gods ancient people And therefore to make the Reformation to consist in abolishing that Law is to make the Reformation to consist in abolishing Gods service And this I think enough to be said in this abridgment seeing I am no further to entâ—â— into debate of the particulars then the justifying of the generall ground requires onely remembring that which I have said already that the obligation is the same whither the particulars may appear to have been established by the Apostles or received into the generall practice of the Church The power of the Apostles supposing the being of Christianity which their work was to preach and extending no further then the setling of it in the community of the Church by the order of Gods service which the alteration of the sâ—ate and condition of the Church must needâ— make changeable as well as that which the whole Church should introduce So that whither the Apostles or the Church authorized by the Apostles have introduced an order within the compass of Gods Law that is the substance of Christianity in the observation whereof the unity of the Church in the service of God which is the end of all order in the Churâ—h consisteth it shall equally oblige every Christian to maintain and cherish it upon the criâ—e of Schisâ— to be incurred in case any breach fall out by violating the same CHAP. XXII The people of God â—ied to build Synagogues though not by the leter of the Law The Church to provide Churches though the Scripture command it not Prescribing the form of Gods publick service is not quenching the Spirit The Psalter is prescribed the Church for Gods Praises The Scriptures prescribed to be read in the Church The Order of reading them to be prescribed by the Church NOw as for the determination of certain places for the service of God I cannot see how there is or can be generally and absolutely any dispute whether or no there ought to be places set apart for that purpose so that all Christians may know where to resort to serve God The mater being so evident to the common reason of all men that to make any scruple about it in regard that there is no precept of God Law for it written either to the Jews in the Old Testament or the Christians in the New were to make a doubt whether God gave his Law to reasonable creatures or not Indeed in the Old Testament there is a Precept for all Gods people to resort to the place where he should chuse to place his name for the offering of their burnt sacrifices and oblations which he thereby makes abominable any where else to be offered But this might have been a colour to have pretended that God had forbidden so fart from requiring all other religious Assemblies of his people or any places to be set apart for that purpose had not his Prophets and the Governors of his people understood from the the beginning the difference between his spiritual and carnall Law answerable to the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Land of promise And that though the ceremoniall service of God in the Temple could not be so parted from his spiritual service that the place to which the one was confined should exclude the other yet the spiritual service of God was to extend to those places from whence his figurative and ceremoniall service stood excluded by the Law It is no marvail then if for a time the acts where of we read in the Books of Josua Judges Ruth and Samuel Sacrifices were offered in the High Places that is in other places deputed to the service of God besides that where the Ark of the Covenant stood Whither we suppose that the choice which God by the Law had intimated that he would make of a place where he intended to settle his service were not executed all the while before the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem and the building of the Temple there Or whither there was a conditionall purpose of God of setling his service in the Tribe of Ephraim at Shiloh declared
apart for that use then in ordinary houses serving for other purposes And therefore though I believe that there is still mention in such records as the Church hath left of Assemblies held in ordinary houses that is to say that there is many times mention of the Assemblies of Christians in the lives of the Saints and the Acts of Martyrs in private Houses and not in Churches yet of the Titles and Coemiteries of the Church of Rome I do not believe the like For this word Title necessarily importeth a Marke set upon a place set aside for Church goods to Church uses it being then a visible custome in the world â—or those things that became the Exchequers by some title of Right to have markes set upon them challenging them upon that Title and this being the reason of the name Neither is it necessary that this Marke should be a Cross without as the Cardinall Baroniâ—s imagines which might discover them to Persecutors seeing the Marke might be visible though onely to Christians witnessing the consecrating of the place to that distinct use There is no cause then to discredit that which we have immediately from Anastasius because he had the best and the ancientest Records of the Church for his materials That Pope Evaristus so near our Lord divided the Titles that is the Churches then extant among his Presbyters For whereas Corneliâ—s in his leter to Fabiâ—s Bishop of Antiochia in Eusebius which I speak of elsewhere tells him that the Church of Rome had then six and forty Priests Optatus in his second Book affirms that the Christians had in Rome when the Donatists first came thither Quadraginta Basilicas quod excurrit Forty fair Churches and upwards For those houses which Christians having consecrated to the use of the Church a room was reserved in for divine service were afterwards turned into better buildings meerly for the service of God and not for the retyring of Christians in time of persecutions Eusebius Eccles Hist VIII 2. shows us that afore the persecution of Diocletiane the Christians in all Cities had raised new buildings from the very foundations because the old received not their assemblies So neer then comes the number of Churches at the Donaâ—â—sts coming to Rome to the number of Priests in Cornelius his time So neer comes this agreement to justifie the distribution of Titles under Evaristus As for the burying places of Christians which their saith must need require them so keep distinct from the sepulchers of them who had it not whether within or without their Cities who can deny that it was a great opportunity for the celebrating of their Assemblies Especially the remains of them near Rome that are yet extant witnessing what means theere was both for their refuge there in the time of persecutioâ— and also for the solemnizing of the offices of Christanity as you may see by those things which Cardinal Baronius relateth I alledged afore the sentence of the Emperour Alexander Severus about a place questionable between the Christians and the Taverners being very confident that no reason will allow that this place could be otherwise adjudged to the Christians then as belonging to the Church of the place I know we have many places alleged out of Origen Arnobius Lactantius and others that defend Christianity against the Gentiles to show that Christians then had no Temples But the effect of them lies in the word Templum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying stately Fabricks built for the magnifying of the professed Religion by those that built them which the Christians could not then do when their religion was not allowed In the mean time places for the opportunity of assembling themselves which Arnobius and Ammianus call conventicula they can no more then be supposed to have wanted then to have been no Christians And that before Constantine they had those Fabricks which might bear the same of Templa or Basilicae because for the bulk and beauty of them answerable to the Temples of the Heathen Gods or the great mens Palaces among the Romans some whereof perhaps were by that time dedicated to be Churches The same Lactantius may be my witnesse where he mentioneth such a one at Nicomedia Ego cum in Bithynia or atorias liter as accitus docerem contigissetque ut eodem tempore dei Templum everteretur I saith he being sent for â—into Bithynia and teaching eloquence when it fell out that the Temple of God was pulled down This was one of those fair buildings which Eusebius spoke of set up before the persecution of Diocleâ—iane and pulled down by it And besides the place quoted afore Optatius lib. I. where speaking of the Bishops that made the best of the Donatists after the persecution of Diocletiane he saith that they met in Council at Carthage in domo Urbanii Carosii giving for a reason nondum enim erant Basilicae restitutae because the Palaces were not restored to the Church therefore they met in a private house And truly it were a thing so barbarous Cycloâ—ical so becoming those Monsters of whom the Poet says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that none of them hearkens to another in any thing to imagine that it is not necessary to have certain known places for Christians to meet at for the service of God that I will not suppose that the question is about that point amongst us whatsoever noise may have been made in this confusion amongst us But rather that the difference is about having stately Fabricks for magnifying of the Religion which we profess about the maner of building them according to the importance of those offices for which they are built about the consecrating of them and the holinesse to be ascribed to them about using the same buildings which have once either truly or imaginarily been polluted with Idolatry All which being considerations not proper to this place I shall content my selfe to have said this to the point proper to this place I go forwards to consider the Order or the mater and form of the publick service of God which I cannot do without setting aside one scruple which was never heard of in Gods Church till our time and in our time hath been caried on so hot that it hath been one of the chief pretenses of dissolving the unity of be Church in England which hath opened the Gap to all the Divisions which we are over-runne with It is pretended that God is not to be served with soâ—â—es of Prayer prescribed by the Church but with that which his Spirit inciteâ— to those who have the Grace of the Spirit whither appointed by the Church to the Ministery of Gods service in publick which are those only those as I have showed that are designed to bear a share in the Government of the Church or not What the Presbyterians have abated hereof by their Directory I will not be troubled to inquire Every man may remember that so long as the businesse was to dissolve the unity of
the Church and to make voâ—â— the Laws which settled it they cryed up this position as much as the rest But when it came to order that confusion which they had made themselves they then found it necessary to limit both the mater and form though not the words which the offices of divine service should be celebrated with Which what was it but Plowdens case that for the form of Gods service to be prescribed by themselves it is not only lawful but requisite by the Church altogether abâ—â—inable And indeed those who must needs take upon them to appoint the persons who are to minister to the People must needs take upon them to appoint the form in which it was to be done They who make the one to depend upon the moâ—ion of Gods Spirit must make the other do the like though never able to make evidence of any such motion in any person that ever pretended it And yet is that all that ever hath been alledged so farre as I know for all opinions so new to Gods Church That S. Paul forbiddeth to quench the spirit 1 Thes V. 19. I do not deny that other texts of S. Paul have been alleged who in 1 Cor. XXI XIV discourseth so largely of the use of spiritual graces ordering also how they should be exercised and imployed in the said Church Nor that writting to the Romans VIII 23. 26. 27. he saith That the Spirit which groaneth for the resurrection in those that have the first fruits of it helpeth the infirmities of the Saints not knowing what to pray for as they ought interceding for them with grones unutterable which the searcher of hearts knowing the mind of the Spirit findeth to be made after the will of God But in these sayings there is nothing like a precept much lesse such a one as may seem to oblige the whole Church On the contrary the evidences are so frequent and so palpable in the discourse of S. Paul to the Corinthians that the Graces whereof he speaketh are miraculous Graces such as God then furnished the Church with to evidence the presence of his Spirit in it as well as 〈◊〉 their edification in Christianity assistance in Gods service that it were madnesse to require the Church to sollow the rules which suppose them which now appear no more in the Church And truly with what conscience can he alledge against the Church of Rome that miracles are ceased the grace whereof is ranked by S. Paâ—l with those which tend to the edification of the Church 1 Cor. XII 8. 9 10 28 29 30. who challengeth for himselfe or his fellows the priviledge of those Graces in Gods Church With what conscience can they hear S. Paul say 1 Cor. X. 17. That the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with And challenge themselves the priviledge of profiting the Church by Teaching or by Praying without any manifestation of the Spirit For are they not challenged every day to make manifest that ever any of them did speak by Gods Spirit and not by the Spirit of this World inspiring the fruits of the flesh by carnal or rather diabolical pride innovating in matters of Faith and destroying the uniformity of Gods service And therefore when S. Paul having said Quench not the Spirit addeth Deipise not Prophesies what hath been alleged what can be alleged why it should not be thought that he repeateth in brief that order which he had declared so largely to the Corinthians that the grace of speaking in unknown languages should not be discountenanced in the Church and so the Spirit extinguished But that Prophesies the grace whereof he there preferreth so farr before it should no way be neglected for it Truly he that saith The manifestation of the spirit is given to all to profit with doth say in effect that the Spirit which groâ—neth for the resurrection in them which have the first fruits that is the prime graces of it makes intercession for the Saints according to God by helping that infirmity of theirs whereby they know not what to pray for of themselves For those who had not alwayes had the Apostles Doctrine sounding in their ears but onely were instructed by them and their fellows so farr as to be fit for Baptism remaining neverthelesse novices in Christianity why should we think them fit to know what to pray for in all occasions Why should we think it strange that God should give the first fruits of his Spirit to profit them with in this case But the faith of Christ with the reasons and consequences thereof being setled and the order of the Church being established as the gift of miracles ceased as well to the bodily health and support of Christians and the Church as to the demonstration of Gods presence and witnesse to the truth of Christianity As the delivering of incorrigible sinners to Satan to the destruction of the flesh by bodily diseases and death ceased when obedience to Gods Church was established so is it no marvail if the Graces of Gods Spirit which profited the Church in teaching them what to pray for should no more be granted when the Church had not onely knowledge but good order established by which those offices might be preformed to the profit and edification of Christians Let them then who find that they can cure the sick by their prayers anoint them with oyl upon that ground and to that purpose Let them who can sing Psalms extempore so as to become the praises of God because S. Paul saith When ye come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a revelation hath an interpretation And that may be as well suggested upon the place as afore hand S. Paul saith that if a stranger coming into the Church should hear divers speak in strange languages that which they made not their hearers understand he would say were madd 1 Cor. XIV 23. dotwithstanding that it might appear that they would not speak those languages but by Gods Spirit I will onely demand of them not to abuse and dishonour Gods Spirit by imputing â—nto it those operations which it is not for the honour of God to acknowledge And then tell them that they must be tried by our common Christianity whether that they pretend to say or to do by the same agree with it But further order of Gods service in the Church let us proceed according to the principles premised comparing that which we find extant in the Scriptures with the original and general practice of Gods Church to say That the service of God consisting of his praises the doctrine of the Scriptures read and expounded and the prayers of the Church especially those which the communion of the Eucharist is celebrated with In the first place the Psalms of David that is the Book of Psalms is necessarily by the practice of the whole Church a form of Gods praises determined to the Church Which conclusion as it
is easily seen extendeth further then those Psalms which by the Titles of them or by other circumstance of Scriptures may appear to have been composed to be sung in the Temple though this contain a peremptory instance against this strange demand that it should be unlawful to serve God with set forms For what difference can be imagined between Psalms and Prayers as to that purpose But the conclusion is directed against that new light which pretendeth to cast the Psalms out of the Church because it appeareth that they were composed upon the particular occasions of the Prophet David or other servants of God by whom they were penned and therefore not concerning the state of Christs Church so as to be frequented by Christians upon publick as well as private occasions for the praises of God This conceit is sufficient to show how litle these new lights do understand of our common Christianity over-looking that which the Church hath alwayes supposed against the Jews as the onely ground whereupon she wresteth the Scriptures of the Old Testament out of their hands and turneth them to the interest of the Church against themselves To wit that the Prophets being inspired by the same spirit which our Lord sent his Apostles did preach the same Christianity with them though according to the dispensation of that time figuring the spiritual estate of Christians by the temporall estate of Gods then people and injoyning the duties of Gods spiritual obedience in a measure correspondent to the light of the time For upon this ground hath it been received by the whole Church that the case of David and of other the servants of God who penned the Psalms is the case first of our Lord Christ then of Christs Church whitheâ— in the whole thereof or in the state of particular Christians David and the rest bearing first the person of Christ then of his Church according to the principles premised in the first Book I might here allege that ingenious saying of S. Hilary that Christ hath the Key of David because the spiritual sense of the Pâ—â—lter is opened by the discovery of Christ and his Church I might allege S. Austine accepting of Tychonius the Donatist his rules for the exposition of the Psalmes that those things which are literally understood of the temporall state of David and Gods then people are to be spiritually understood of the state of our Lord Christ here on earth first then of the spiritual estate of his whole Church and of each Christian But I had rather allege the practice of of Gods whole Church of which there is no age no part to be named and produced in which it may appear that God was not served by singing the Psalms of David to his praise Not that I would confine this office to that form which the Psalter yeelds or think that the Apostles exhortations Col. III. 16. James V. 13. Ephes 19. can be confined unto them Being well assured by comparing that which I read in the Apostles whith that which I read in Tertullians Apologetick where he saith that the Christians at their feasts of love were wont to provoke one another to sing something of Gods praises that they did in a simple stile but from a deep and losty sense compose the praises of God in Psalms of their own fitted to that light which the coming of Christ hath brought into the Church But that I would have this lothing of the Book of Psalms recommended not by the Church of England but by the whole Church to be taken for an evident mark that we are weary of the common Christianity of Gods people and do lust for new meat of our own asking if not for the fleshpots and Onyons and Garlicke of Egypt As for the reading of the Scriptures in the Church which the whole Church hath used as generally as it hath had the Scriptures for we understand by Irenaeus and may see by our ancestors the Saxons that Christianity hath subsisted among people that had not not the use of leters Though our anceflors the Saxons had the Scriptures before they had the use of leters by the means of them who brought them Christianity But Irenaeus speaks of barbarous Nations that were Christians before they knew of any Scriptures I see it rather neglected then disputed against by the sects of this time Why neglected divers reasons may be conceived though they perhaps as a disparagement to the Spirit whence they may pretend to have their Orders the carnall man onely chusing in Religion that which by the use of reason he is convinced to come from God contrary to the principles setled at the beginning think fit to allege none Their illuminati perhaps are already so perfit in the Text that it were loss of time for them to assemble to hear the Scriptures read To whom I must say That those who are inlightned by God are alwayes humble and ready to continue in the unity of the Church as I have showed by the premises that all Christians ought to do That if they do so the greater part of the Church by much will have need to learn the Scriptures that â—is instruction out of them by hearing them read in the Church That all that are inlightned by God are taught to condescend to the necessities of the weak and simple And that those who break from the Church rather then do so may think themselves strong but their strength is the strenth of Madmen that see not what they do In fine that they who have received light by the knowledge of the Scriptures must needs add to their light by hearing them read and that there is no beter way for them to add to it being the way which the primitive Fathers took for that purpose It may perhaps be imagined that the reading of the Scriptures takes up the time of assemblies and excludes the preaching of the Word To which I must say for the present that it is a strange piece of providence to exclude the reading of the Scripture which we know to be the word of God and to have in it no cause of offence but that which the want of understanding in the hearers thereof ministreth out of a desire to make way for that which pretendeth indeed always to be the word of God but no understanding so simple no conscience so seared that must not needs know that it is not that it cannot always be the word of God because of the contradictions that pass under that Title And that in maters of so high nature at this time that if the one be the word of God the other must not be counted the word of humane weakness but of diabolical malice There are indeed certain bounds within which that which is preached out of the Pulpit may be presumed and taken for the word of God as it might be if it were said in another place But if ignorant people that cannot take upon them to judge shall presume it of that
in the judgement of many that think themselves the most refined Christians that they allow it not that common sense in managing the businesse of Christianity which they must needs allow Jews Pagans Mahometans in faithfully serving their own faithlesse suppositions and which all experience shows us that it serves all mankind to what purpose soever it is imployed and that notwithstanding so great a triall of it as the governing of so great a Body as the Church is in unity so farre and so long as this Unity hath prevailed it is therefore necessary to give a reason why the Church so used them Which supposing the premises it will be as easie as it is necessary for me to give and that more sufficient if I mistake not then can possibly be given not supposing the same For if the secret of the resurrection the general judgement and the World to come if the mystery of the Holy Triniâ—y consisting in the Word or Wisdome and Spirit of God if the inward and spiritual service of God in truth of heart be more clearly opened in them by the work of Providence dispensing the effect of Canonicall Scripture by the occurrences of time then in the Law and the Prophets themselves which I have showed both that so it is and why so it is from the ground of the difference between the Old and the New Testament then I suppose there is sufficient reason why those who admit the Old Testament to be made for common edification in the Church should not put any question concerning those Scriptures Those new lights among us who do not allow the Psalter to be pertinently and reasonably imployed for the publick service of God upon all occasions as the Church hath alwaies imployed it may assure us that they understand not why the Scriptures of the Old Testament are read in the Church because they understand not the correspondence between the Old and the New Testament in the understanding whereof the edification of the Church by the Scriptures of the Old Testament consisteth There may be offence taken at divers things in these Scriptures I deny not But there may be offence taken in like maner at divers things in the Canonicall Scriptures of the Old Testament The humility of Christians requires them edifying themselves in that which they understand in the Scriptures according to our common Christianity in the rest which they understand not to refer themselves to their Superiours The Church understood well enough this difference and this correspondence to be discovered by these writings as the time required when it appointed Learners to read them And though I stand not upon terms yet I conceive they are more properly called Ecclesiastical because the Church hath imployed them to be read in the Church then Apocryphal according to the use of that word in the Church to signifie such writings as the Church suspecteth and therefore alloweth not to be read whither in publick or in private Whereupon I conceive also that the term of Canonical Scripture hath and ought to have two senses one when we speak of the Jews Canon in the Old Testament another when we speak of the Canon of the Church For seeing the Tradition of the Synagogue is perfect evidence what Scriptures of the old Testament are to be received as inspired by God the word Canon in that case may well signifie the Rule of our Faith or maners But because the Church cannot pretend to create that evidence originally but onely to transmit what she receiveth from the Synagogue Pretending neverthelesse to give a Rule what shall be read for the edification of the Church the word Canon therefore in that case will signifie onely the list or Catalogue of Scriptures which the Church appoints to be read in the Church which seems to reconcile the diverse accounts extant in severall Records of the Church CHAP. XXIII The consideration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it Lords Prayer prescribed in all services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the forms of other Offices IN the next place I do maintain that the Order of celebrating the Eucharist and the Prayer which it was was from the beginning solemnized with were from the beginning prescribed the Church by unwritten custome that is by Tradition from the Apoâ—â—les containing though not so many words that it was not lawful to use more or lesse for these were always occasions for celebrating the Eucharist emergent which must be intimated in fewer or more words in the celebrating of it yet the mater and substance of the Consecration of it together with the mater and substance of the necessities of the Church for which it was offered that is to say for which the Church was and is to pray at the celebration of it as hoping to obtain them by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which it representeth as received from the beginning was every were known to be the same This I inferr from that which I have said in the Book afore quoted of those Texts of S. Paul where those Prayers of the Church which the Eucharist is consecrated with are called Eucharistia or Thanksgiving if not rather the thanksgiving because it was a certain form of Thanksgiving well known to all Christians by that name from whence the Sacrament â—o consecrated was also so called from the time that our Lord hâ—ing blessed or given thanks to the Father over the Elements had said This is my body this is my blood and order is given that at the celebration thereof Prayers be made for the necessities of the Church and of all people 1 Cor. XIV 25. 26. 1 Tiâ—â— II. 1-8 Together with those passages of primitive antiquity from whence it appeareth there that the form of consecrating the Eucharist used and known generally in the Church is called Eucharistia and that the custome of interceding for all the necessities of the Church and for the reducing of unbelievers to the same is and hath been taken up and ever frequented by the Church in obedience to and prosecution of the said precept of the Apostles This observation might perhaps be thought too obscure evidence â—o bring to light a point of this consequence were it not justified by all that I produced afore to show that the Eucharist is consecrated by the Prayers of the Church which celebrateth it upon the faith of our Lords institution and promise For the mater of these Prayers tending to a certain purpose that the Elements may become the Body and Blood of Christ and convay his Spirit to those who receive them with living faith the Consecration which is the effect of them requires that the form of them be prescript and certain though not in number of words yet in sense in tent and substance And this by the evidence there produced may appear to have been maintained from the beginning by Tradition in
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
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
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
divinity of Plato was a tradition derived by Pythagoras from the familiarity which he had with uncleane spirits seeking to refine the grosse Idolatry of the Gentiles into a more subtill way of worshiping the Devile Which being imitated by Simon Magus and his followers of whom Menander professed Magick as Basilides and Marcus also did and the monuments of the Basilidians Magicke are extant to this day in the hands of Antiquaries as you may see in Baronius his Annales and the life of Peireski written by Gassendus and still more plentifully in a latter Booke on purpose to expound the monuments of the Basillidians God called Abraxas in those severall Fulnesses of the Godhead which the severall sects of them tuaght worshipped brought forth that worship of Angels which S. Paul condemned Col. II. 8-9 Whether as belonging to the fulnesse of the Godhead or as revealers of it Especially if it be considered that the deriving of the Originall and beginning of evill from a principle belonging to that Fulnesse of the Godhead which each sect of the Gnosticks acknowledged a position common to them all is also a part of Plato and Pythagoras his Philosophy which the Stoicks also from whom the Heretick Hermogenes in Tertullian deriveth it were tainted with as well as with the opinion of Fate utterly inconsistant with the worship of the true God as Aristotle and Epicurus his Philosophy free enough from familiarity with uncleane spirits is with denying of providence at least in human affaires which the eternity of the world necessarily produceth Neither is the Heresy of Cerdon and Marcion which succeeded the Gnosticks any thing else but Pythagoras his position of a principle of Good and an other of Evil applyed to the supposition of Christianity though such as they thought good to admit As for that of the Manichees we may an well allow Epiphanius deriving it from one Scythianus a rich merchant from Arabia to Egypt who having also learned their Magick writ foure books to maintaine Pythagoras his two principles And going unto Jerusalem to confer with the Christians there who maintained one true God and getting the worse betook himselfe to his Magick and exercising the same on the top of an house was cast downe from thence and dyed His disciple also and slave Terbinthus whom he left his heire going into Persia to confer with the priests of Mithras about the same purpose and being worsted betook himselfe to his masters Magick and got his death as his master had done Thus saith Epiphanius and that Manes marying his widow by his books and by his wealth became author of this sect onely that having got the books of the Old New Testament he used what colours they would afford him to intitle his device to Christianity for the seducing of Christians But whoso considers what master Pocâ—â—k hath produced out of the relations of the Saracens concerning the religion of the Persians p. 146. 150. whatsoever contest his predecessors might have with the Persians must acknowledg the Heresy of the Manichees to come from the Idolatry of the Persians the divines where of acknowedg a Principle of darknesse opposite to a Principle of light as we read also in Agathias expressely lib. II. that the religion of the Persians is that of Manichees And these considerations here put together upon this occasion may well seeme as I conceive to satisfie us that it is no marvaile the Pagane Greeks Romans should be so brutish as to worship stocks and stones having among them those wits that have left such excellent things of God and of mans duety to God upon record Seeing it appeares that the most divine of them were no otherwise taught then as it might best serve the Deviles turne to detaine them in the more subtill Idolatry of Magicians The rest being tainted with such positions as stand not with the worship of one true God So that it is no marvaile if they complyed with the vulgar Idolatries of their nations to him that considers that which I have written in the review of my booke of the right of the Church in a Christian state p. CLXVII to show that the followers of Plato and Pythagoras in the first times of Christianity as they were themselves Magicians so were great instruments to promote the persecuting of Christianity Which is also the true reason why the Gnosticks having devised every sect a way of Idolatry proper to themseves did indifferently counterfeit themselves Jewes Christians or Pagans for avoiding of persecution or for gaining of Proselytes eating things sacrificed to Idoles in despite of S Paul and taking part in the Idolatrous spectacles and sight of the Gentiles as Irenaeus with the rest of the Fathers witnesseth These particulars I have thus far inlarged to make a full induction of all the waies of Idolatry mentioned in the scriptures wherewith all the writings of the Jewes Pagans and Christians exactly agree by which induction it may appeare that all the waies of Idolatry which the Scripture mentioneth doe presuppose the beliefe of some imaginary and false Godhead properly called an idole as imaginary and without subsistence though that name is no lesse properly attributed to the image of it then the Image of any thing is called by the name of that which it representeth because of the intercourse which by the meanes of such Images those that worshipped them had with the author of such Imaginations even the Devile thinking they had it with theire imaginary Deities And the worshipping of those Dieties whether before under such an image or without it is that which is called Idolatry in the Scriptures For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may generally signifie all images and can have no bad sense in the usage of Hethen writers because they could never thinke amisse of the Images which they thought represented their Deities Yet when Christianity had brought in a beliefe that it was the Devile whom the Gentiles worshipped under those Images the word Idole being appropriated to them must needs be are a sense of that which the Christians detested Iust as I said even now of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it must needs beare another sense to the eares of Christans then it could among the heathen poets or Philosophers This language S. Jerome useth when in his translation of Eusebius his Chronicle num MDCCCLIV he saith of Judas Maccabaeus Templum ab Idolrum imaginibus expurgavit that he purged the temple from images of Idoles supposing the difference which I make between imaginary deityes and their Images And S. Austine in lib. Jud. Quaest XLI speaking of the case of Gedeon Cum Idolum non fuerit id est cujusdam Dei falsi simulacrum seeing it was no idole that is to say the image of any false God Which if it be true it will no way be possible to exempt the case of Aaron or Jereboam from that reason of Idolatry which this induction inforceth Or to imagine that
whereby they thought they held their estate whether of this world or the hope they might have of the world to come For my opinion obligeth me not to say that Idolatry was commanded by this law of Jeroboam or practised by all that conformed to it But that though not expresly commanded yet it followed by necessary consequence upon the introducing of the Law Not by consequence of naturall necessity from that which the terms thereof imported but by that necessity which the Schoole calls morall when the common discretion of men that are able to judge in such matters evidences that supposing such a Law it must needs and will come to passe CHAP. XXVI The Place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God I Come now to the nicest point if I mistake not of all that occasions the present Controversies and divisions of the Western Church the state of soules departed with the profession of Christianity till the day of Judgement The resolution whereof that which remaines concerning the publick service of God the order and circumstances of the same must presuppose This resolution must procede upon supposition of that which the first book hath declared concerning the knowledge of the Resurrection and the world to come under the Old Testament and the reservation and good husbandry in declaring it which is used in the writings of it The consideration whereof mightily commendeth the wisdome and judgment of the ancient Church in proposing the bookes which we call Apocrypha for the instruction of the Ca echumeni or learners of Christianity For these are they in which the Resurrection and the world to come and the happy state of righteous soules after death is plainly and without circumstance first set forth I need not here repeat the seven Maccabees and their mother professing to dy for Gods Law in confidence of Resurrection to the world to come 2 Mac. VII 9 11 23 36. nor the Apostle Ebr. XI 35-38 testifying the same of them and the rest that lived or died in their case But I must not omit the Wisdom of Solomon the subject whereof as I said afore is to commend the Law of God to the Gentiles that in stead of persecuting Gods people they might learn the worship of the onely true God For this he doth by this argument that those who persecute Gods people think there remains no life after this but shall find that the righteous were at rest as soone at they were dead and in the day of judgement shall triumph over their enemies Wisdome II. III. 1-8 V From hence proceeding to show how the wisdome of Gods people derives it selfe from Gods wisdome who so strangely delivered them from the persecutions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians for a warning to those that might undertake the like In particular the Kings of Egypt under whom this was writ and the Jewes most used the Greek The Wisdome of Jesus the sonne of Sirach pretending to lay down those rules of righteous conversation which the study of the Law the off-spring of Gods Wisdome had furnished him with is not so copious in this point though the precepts of inward and spirituall obedience and service of God from the heart which he delivers throughout can by no meanes be parted from the hope of the world to come being grounded upon nothing else And he proposeth it plainly from the beginning when he saith He that feareth God it shall go well with him in the end and at the day of his death he shall be blessed The very additions to Daniel are a bulwarke to the Faith of the Church when it appeares that the happinesse of righteous soules after death is not taken up by any blind tradition among Christians but before Christianity expressed for the sense of Daniels fellows in those words of their hymne O ye spirits and souls of the righteous blesse ye the Lord praise him and magnify him for ever And whatsoever we may make of the second book of Maccabees the antiquity of it will alwayes be evidence that the principall author of it Jason of Cyrene could never have been either so senselesse or so impudent as to impose upon his nation that prayers or sacrifices were used by them in regard of the resurrection if they believed not the being and sense of humane souls after death 2 Mac. XII 43. Proceed we to those passages concerning this point which the Gospell afford us and consider how well they agree herewith I will not here dispute that our Lord intended to relate a thing that really was come to passe but to propose a parable or resemblance of that which might and did come to passe when he said Luke XVI 19 There was a certaine rich man that was clad with fine linnen and purple and made good chear every day But I will presume upon this That no man that meanes not to make a mockery of the Scriptures will indure that our Lord should represent unto us in such terms as we are able to bear that which falls out to righteous and wicked soules after death if there were no such thing as sense and capacity of pleasure and paine in souls departed according to that which they do here I will also propose to consideration the description of the place whereby he represents unto us the different estate of those whom it receiveth And in Hell lifting up his eyes being in torments he sees Abraham from afarre and Lazarus in his bosome And afterwards And besides all this between us and you there is a great gappe fixed so that those who would passe from hence cannot nor may they passe from thence to us For I perceive it is swallowed for Gospell amongst us that Dives being in Hell saw Lazarus in the third heavens Whereas the Scripture saith onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the invisible place of good and bad â—oules For so the processe of the Parable obliges us to understand it Sâ—â—ing it would be somewhat strange to understand that gappe wherewith the place of happy soules is here described to be parted from the place of torments to be the earth and all that is between the third heavens and it The Jewes at this time as we see by the Gospell believing according to the testimonies alleged that righteous soules were in rest and pleasure and happinesse wicked in misery and torments called the place or state of those torments Gehenna from the valley of the sonnes of Hinnom neer Jerusalem where those that of old time sacrificed their children to devils burnt them with fire The horror of which place it appears was taken up for a resemblance fit to represent the torment of the wicked soules after death In like manner Gods people being sensible of Gods mercy in using meanes to bring them back to the ancient inheritance
God knowes us as we are Nay he saith there that Moses beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek seems to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that glorious appearance witnessing the presence of God which Moses communed with mouth to mouth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sight for we have no better English for S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. V. 7. not by riddles Whereby it appeareth the knowledge of God which blessed soules have is described by S. Paul in the very same termes in which the knowledg of God which Moses had is described by God And yet none of those School Doctors believes that Moses saw God as the blessed shall doe Therefore both of them seeme to be such an expression of intellectuall and spirituall things borrowed from bodily things of this world as this weakenesse of our nature is able to beare And therefore seeing God is represented to us throughout the whole scripture in the Majesty of a King sitting upon his Throne as the most glorious thing that all sorts of men to whom the scripture is written can imagine to themselves it seemeth most reasonable to conceive that both expâ—essions are borrowed from thence For the custome of the world knowes no more evident marke of preferment then for a man to see his King and to be alwaies admitted to his presence of which admission Courts know that there are many degrees As the VII Princes in Ester I. 16. which see the Kings face Or stand before the Kings face as the Queen of Sheba expresseth it in Solomons servants 2 Kings X. 8. As the souls of the Martyrs are before Gods throne and see him day and night Apoc. VII 15. And so by consequence those soules that are admitted into Gods presence have an other manner of knowledge and familiarity with God then ever Moses had because it is one thing to see God to speake with God mouth to mouth in his Tabernacle Where by a glorious appearance speaking in his person he testified his presence another thing in the third heavens whereof the most Holy Place of the Tabernacle was but a figure Here take notice before we goe further in what fashion the Majesty of God appeareth or is described in the scriptures I saw the Lord sitting on his Throne and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left saith the prophet 1 Kings XX. 19. that is all the Angels attending on both sides of his Throne God is to be trembled at in the great council of his Saints and terrible above all that are about him Saith David Psa LXXIX 8. The Majesty of his Throne is terrible even to the Angels that stand beneath and about it For the Saints of heaven in the old Testament are onely Angels Thus far none of them sits in Gods presence In that vision of his throne which appeareth Dan. VII 9. 10. with God sitting on it like the Ancient of daies with a thousand thowsands and a miryade of miryads waiting upon him it is said indeed Thrones were set But no mention of any but this one in all that followeth And though the people of God are called there v. 22 25 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints of the Highest Yet the Angles are still the Saints of heaven His people the Saints on earth whom God there giveth sentence for against their enemies But to the prophet Ezekiel I. 22 26 27. he appearteth in the likenesse of a man sitting upon a Throne pitched on a floor which is drawne by foure living creatures signifying those Angels which covered the Arke of the Covenant in the Tabernacle upon which God is described to sit as upon his Throne in so many places of the old Testament Whereas in the vision of the Prophet Esay his Throne is compassed by six Esay VI. 1 2. in that of S. Iohn Apoc. IV. 2 3 5-8 with foure But in the new testament our Lord promises his twelve Apostles that at the regeneration that is the Resurrection they shall sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel Mat. XIX 28. Luke XXII 30. where by the way wee are also to note that the Kingdome of God which oure Lord bequeaths to them to eate and to drink in it and to sit on these thrones is not till the resurrection Therfore neither these joies which the said eating and drinking signifies Hereuppon it is that S. Paul saith Know you not that the Saints shal judge the world 1 Cor. VI. 2. When therfore God appeareth to S. Iohn as a bout to take vengeance upon the persecutors of his Church his throne appeareth invironed with XXIV Thrones for XXâ—V Elders to sit on and give sentence with him Apoc. VI. 4. the Angels attending upon their Thrones as upon his Apoc. V. 11. VII 11. and the soules of the Martyrs which Apoc. VI. â— appeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneath the Altar of incense which stands before the throne Apoc. VIII 3. appeare before the Throne Apoc. VII 9. Just as in the Church the people was wont to stand at the service of God with their faces towardes the Bishop sitting on his throne in the midst of the seates on which the Presbyters sate on both sides of him the Deacons standing to gâ—ve them attendance As I have shewed large in my booke of the service of the Church Chap. III. p. 53-62 Chap. IV. p. 71-76 besides the review p. 74 75. And further in my book of the Râ—ght of the Church p. 93-98 But all this while we must remember that though this vision appeares to S. Iohn in the heavens Apoc. IV. 1. yet doth it not appear that the Throne of God before which the soules of the Martyrs stand and round about which the XXIV Elders sit is seene by them as it is seene by S. Iohn in the vision here described For whereas it is plaine that all this is represented as if there wâ—re in Heaven such a Temple as that at Jerusalem in the inner court whereof the Elders sit the people stand praysing God For Apoc. VII 15. the Martyâ—s serve God before the Throne day and night in the Temple It is manifest that the Throne of God which in the Temple was the Arke of the Covenant shadowed with the Châ—rubâ—nes was not seene by those who worshipped without in the Court. And Apoc. IV 5. it is said that thunder and lightning came out of the Throne and that there were seven lamps burning before the Throne being the seven spirits of God So that the seven candelsticks being betweene the Holy of Holies and the Court in which these things appeare we are obliged to understand the Throne to be in the Holy of Holies as in the Temple and the VII lights in the outward Tabernacle or holy place of the Temple Which is still more plaine when it is said Apoc. XI 19. And the Temple of God in heaven was opened and the Arke of his Covenant was seene in
shall confirme it by so visible an instance as this Death was proposed to Adam for the mark of Gods wrath and vengeance which he was become liable to by sinne The turning of this curse into a blessing was to be the effect of Christs Crosse which was not yet to be revealed The life of the Land of Promise was proposed for the reward of keeping Gods law in stead of the life of Paradise Therefore the cutting off of that life was to be taken for a mark of that curse which mankind became subject to by the first Adam till it should be declared the way to a better life by the Crosse of Christ Therefore the Giants that left it with the markes of enmity with God upon them are described as within the dominion of Hell but not asleep unlesse we can think that it is a mark of misery to go to them that sleep when all do sleep Prov. II. 17. IX 18. XXI 17. Esay XXVI 14. For that there should be no praising of God after death holds punctually in virtue of the Old Covenant which brought no man to life and was then on foot though they who writ those things might and did know that by the virtue of the New Covenant under which they knew themselves to be they should not be deprived of the priviledge of praising God after death and before the resurrection how sparing soever they were to be in imparting this knowledge openly to all the world For how otherwise should they whom the Apostle Ebr. XI declareth to have sought the kingdom of heaven have showed themselves otherwise affected with death then the Martyrs that suffered for Christ were afterwards How could it be thought the same Spirit that moved them to such a difference of effects according to the difference of time And therefore the same Solomon that saith there is nothing to be done in the grave Eccles IX 10. saith further Eccles XII 8. that when the dust returns to the earth then the soul returns to God that gave it And when Exoch and Elias were taken away by God in their Bodies neither sleep they seeing Moses and Elias attend our Lord Christ at his transfiguration Mat. XVII 3 4. Mark IX 4 5. Luke IX 30. nor is it possible for any man that would have soules to sleep to give a reason why the Covenant by which all are ordered being the same the soules of Christians should sleep when their souls sleep not And therefore when our Lord proves the resurrection by this That God is called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob whereas God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. XXII 32. Mark XII 26. Luke XX. 37. he not onely supposes that his argument is good but that his adversaries the Sadduces granted it to be good And so Saint Paul when he argues that if the dead rise not againe then are we the most miserable of all people As having no further hope then this life 1 Cor. XV. 19. For what needed more to them that owned the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ and yet would deny the world to come questioning the resurrection that supposes it For the rest I will not repeate that which I produced afore out of the Books we call Apocrypha which he that peruseth will find a difference between the language of the Patriarchs and Prophets speaking of themselves and the language of those Bookes speaking of them But I will insist upon this that our Lord when he proposeth the Parable of Dives and Lazarus manifestly accepts of that opinion which notwithstanding such difficulties from the Scriptures of the Old Testament had prevailed over the better part of that people by Tradition of the Fathers and Prophets To wit that the soules of good and bad are alive in joy and paine according to the qualities in which they depart hence and shall resume their bodies to give account in them for their workes here The same doth the appearance of Moses and Elias at his transfiguration the rendering of his soul into his Fathers hand the promise of bringing the thiefe into Paradise the same day signify Whereby it appeareth that whatsoever might seeme to argue either that the soules of the Fathers were in the devils hands till the death and resurrection of Christ or that all soules go out like sparks when men dy and are kindled anew when they rise againe prove nothing because they prove too much For if they prove any thing they must prove that there is no world to come as the disputes of Ecclesiastes and Job seem to say because by the accidents of this world there is no ground of a mans estate in it Which seeing it is so farre from leaving any dispute among Christians that among Jewes the Sadduces were reputed Sectaries It is evident that whatsoever may seem to look that way in the Old Testament cannot prove that the soules of the Fathers were in the Verge of Hell till Christ riseing againe the graves were opened and many bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy City and appeared to many as we read in the Gospel of Mat. XXVII 52 53. This indeed were something if the Scripture had said that those Saints who arose with their bodies when our Lord Christ was risen againe had ascended into heaven with him in their bodies Which because it derogates from the generallity of the last resurrection having no ground in the Scripture can beare no dispute Therefore seeing these Saints as Lazarus afore and the Widowes sonne of Naim whom our Lord raised restored their bodies to the grave there is no presumption from hence that their soules were brought from Hell by our Lord to be translated into the full happinesse of the world to come with his owne I do therefore allow that which is written in the Apocryphall 2 Esdras IV. 41 42. In the grave the chambers of souls are like the womb of a woman For like as a woman that travaileth maketh hast to escape the pressure of her travaile Even so do those places haste to deliver the things that are committed unto them And VII 32. And the earth shall restore those that are asleep in her and so shall the dust those that dwell in silence and the secret places shall deliver those soules that were committed unto them For in most of those writings which the ancient Church counteth Apocryphal because they are suspected to intend some poisonous doctrine excellent things are contained which the agreement of them with Canonicall Scripture and their consequence and dependance upon the truth which they settle renders recommendable even from dangerous authors And for that which is here said whether we suppose this book to be written by a Christian or not before Christ or after Seeing there is no mention of any Saints in those visions of the old Testament where God is represented sitting upon his Throne but
this that the body being buryed the soule goe ad Inferos For in Psalmum II. he exemplifies in Dives and Lazarus And Lactantius VII 21. Nec tamen quisquam putet animas post mortem protinus judicari Omnes in una communique custodia detinentur dones tempus adveniat quo maximus index meritorum faciat examen Yet let no man think that soules are judged straight after death They are kept in one common guard till the time come for the Soveraigne Judge to examine theire deserts He denies them to be judged whom Novatianus acknowledgeth to be prejudged or forejudged He means our common guard but intends not to deny the gulfe which it is parted with S. Ambrose de Bono Mortis X. XI saith that those lodgings which the Apocryphichall Esdras speaketh of are the many lodgings which our Lord saith are in his fathers house Iohn XIV 2. and speaking of the Gentiles Satis fuerat dixisse illis quod liberatae animae a corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peterent id est locum qui non videtur quem locum Latine infernum dicimus It had been enough for them to have said that soules freed from their bodies goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to a place not seen which place wee call hell in Latine Signifying that according to Christianity all soules going to Esdras his lodgings may be said to goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latine makes to be under the Earth But whether Christianity so understand it or no not expressing Againe Ergo dum expectatur plenitudo temporis expectant anims remunerationem debitam Alias manet paena alias gloria Et tamen nec illae interim sine injuria nec istae sine fructu sunt While therefore the fulnesse of time is expected soules also expect their own reward Some punishment some glory attendes yet neither they without hardship nor these without benefit in the meane time Yet as it followes neither grieved with cares neither vexed with the remembrance of that which is past as the wicked but foreseeing their rest and glory to come injoy the quiet of their lodgings under the guard of Angels If it be excepted that there is no mention of the Fathers soules Let it be considered how many Church-writers have made the bosome of Abraham in which Lazarus rested before our Lords death a place of rest and refreshment from death till the day of judgement Their words you may find in the answer to the Jesuits Challenge named afore p. 260-267 Where those expositions of the Gospell which goe under the name of Theophilus of Antiochia Euthymius of Lions write two opinions the one placing it under the earth the other above because the rich man lifted up his eyes From whence the second of those dialogues against the Marcionists that goe under Origens name argueth that it is in heaven So far is the ancient Church from being agreed that those store-houses wherein it is agreed that all soules are kept till the generall judgement are beneath the earth And though he was a Christian that writ the Apocryphall book of Esâ—ras II. from whom S. Ambros and S. Austine receive their store-houses of Soules yet speakes it in the person of Esdras concerning the Fathers of the Old Testament In the meane time of the removing of them by the descent of Christ out of the Verge of Hell into heaven not one word in all this which certainely may serve to evidence that there never was nor is any such Tradition in the Church In fine the descent of righteous soules in to hell and the deliverance of them from thence by the descent of our Lord Christ may be understood two severall waies Either according to the literall sense of the old Testament or according ot the mysticall sense of the New For it is manifest that Adam was condemned to labor the earth first and then to returne to the earth And this being expulsed out of Paradise The secret of Christianity consisting in this that our Lord Christ should restore the posterity of Adam from those sorrowes which brought him to the earth whence he was taken to Paradise whence he was expulsed was not to be revealed though it was to take effect in all who in effect though not in forme imbraced and held the Covenant of Grace during the old Testament The land of promise and the blessings thereof were then the pledges of this hope To leave them by death was then to acknowledge themselves liable to the second death which returning to the earth signified so long as their returne to Paradise was not revealed Though to them which understood what the Land of promise signified it was to returne into paradise The new testament succeeding to reveale the mystery of the old must it not needes seeme strange that the Fathers of the old Testament should behave themselves towards death as they who had not this hope Supposing this reason not then to be declared it neede not seeme strange not supposing the same it seems to cal in question som thing of our common Christianity The Gospel opens the secret representing Dives in Hel torments Lazarus in Abrahams bosom But our Lord Christ himselfe being brought downe to the dust of the earth to deliver mankind from the second death signified by the same did our common redemption require that he should come any further under death and them who had the power of it our common Faith might seeme maimed in not believing it But the worke of redemption being accomplished upon the Crosse the effect of it was to be tryed by the disposing of his soule Which effect whether those that belonged to the new Testament under the Old understood by the scriptures of the Law they understood it as did the Devil by theire deliverance out of his hands For the reason of their deliverance he might not understand till the rising of Christ againe taught it When therefore wee see the soules of Adam and his posterity assigned by the Fathers of the Church to the powers of darkenesse let us understand it to hold according to the Old Testament and it will comprehend also the souls of the Fathers Who belonged to the New Testament When we heare them describe them in the rest of Abrahams bosome according to that which our Lord revealeth let us understand the effect of the New Testanent in them that dyed under the Old Without distinguishing thus I conceive it will be impossible to reconcile the Fathers to themselves and the common faith For pressing that which they say on either side you will not faile to make them crosse one an other as well as the Scriptures But thus distinguishing the common faith will remaine that which Macrina in Gregory Nyssens dialogue de anima resurrectione answers to the question Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is To wit that the translation of the soule from this visible world to that which is not seen is all that can be had
then I said before to show you that the ancient Church from the beginning held the happinesse of the Saints souls to continue imperfect till the resurrection of their bodies Gennadius de dogmat Eccles LXXVIII LXXIX will have us to take it for the doctrine of the Church that the soules of the Fathers before Christ were in hell tiâ—l they were delivered thence by Christ That since Christ they go straight to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies that with them they may attaine intire happinesse And that this doctrine had for some time great vogue in the Church I deny not Nor intend to deny that the Saints are with Christ some whereof the Apocalypse represents before the Throne But that there is no Tradition for the translating of the Fathers souls that the saints are in Abrahams bosom or Paradise with them till the resurrection I conceive I have showed by clearing the sayings of the most ancient Christians from the misprisions which they are intangled with He that shall consider the premises may find Tertul. Lactant. and Victorinus whom Cardinal Bellar. acknowledgeth to detaine all soules in their store-houses till the resurrection De S. Beat. I. 5. good company among the rest of the Fathers And therefore I will referre it to the reader to judge between that exposition that he fits the passages of the Fathers with which he produces and that which my opinion requires Especially having Doctor Stapleton Defens Ecclesiast Authorit â— 2. to confesse with others of that side that all the ancients in a manner do hold the contrary of that which is since defined by the Councile of Florence Saint Bernard I must not omit because it is he who considering the text of the Apocalypse which you may see by the premises sayes more then all the Scripture besides hath so pertinently observed out of it that they are but in the Court as yet but at the consummation of their blisse shall enter into Gods house Therefore he maketh three states of the soule The first in tents the second in the Courts the third in Gods house into which neither the Saints shall enter without the common people of the Church nor their soules without their bodies De omnibus Sanctis Serm III. And Serm. IV. the Saints which now see onely the manhood of Christ under the altar he saith shall be lifted upon the altar to see the essence of God The Schoole since his time upon occasion of the contest with the Greek Church believing with Saint Bernard hath stated the dispute upon this terme of seeing God And John XXII Pope is questioned whether intending to determine with Saint Bernard he held heresy heretically or not For his successor Bennet XII first and after him the Councile of Florence hath decreed that for matter of Faith which before the decree was not matter of Faith And therefore if that be true which I said in the first book can never become matter of Faith For my part I see Saint Augustine de cura pro mortuis cap. IX resolve the question how the dead can know what is done here three wayes By the report of those who go hence and by the will of God remember what is done here by the ministery of Angels and by the revelation of Gods Spirit And if Saint John being in the Spirit saw by vision of Prophesy God sitting upon his throne in heaven as well as the Elders and Martyrs soules did I can easily grant that those souls which should have such revelations of Gods Spirit whether by the ministery of Angels or without it might see God upon his Throne as Saint John and the Prophets did and and as the Elders and Martyrs are there described to do But this would be no more that sight of God in which Saint Paul and Saint John seem to place the happinesse of Gods kingdome then that sight of God which Moses had when he communed face to face with God before the Ark was that sight whereof God said to him Thou shalt not see my face For no man shall see my face and live This for certain S. Augustine deriving the knowledge of our maters which blessed soules may have from the ministery of Angels and revelations of Gods Spirit and perhaps from report from hence was farre enough from owning Saint Gregories consequence Quae intus omnipotentis Dei claritatem vident nullo modo credendum est quod foris sit aliquid quod ignorent Those who see within the brightnesse of Almighty God it is not to be thought that there is any thing which they are ignorant of without Moral XII 14. For supposing the Saints see the essence of God it followeth not that thereby they see what is done here because it is not the essence of God but his will by which it may appear So farre it is from any appearance of truth that he who hath recourse to soules that go hence to the ministery of Angels to revelations of Gods Spirit to inform the saints departed of that which is done here should believe them to have that sight of God wherein the happinesse of his kingdom consisteth In fine by the Arch-bishop of Spalato de Rep. Ecclesi VIII 110-120 you shall find the opinion of Calvine to be the same I here maintaine though his followers it seemes are afraid of the evidence for it or the consequence of it Let us see whether justly or not It hath been a custome so general in the church to pray for the dead that no beginning of it can be assigned no time no part of the Ch. where it was not used And though the rejecting of it makes not Aerius an Heretick as disbelieving any part of the faith yet had he broke from the Ch. upon no other cause but that which the whole Church besids him owned he must as a Schismatick have come into Epiphanius his lift of Heresies intending to comprise all parties severed from the Church All that I have known pretended is that which the learned Blondel in a French work of the Sibyls verses hath conjectured that it had the begâ—nning from that book Which book as divers before him have showed reason why it should be thought the worke of a Christian intending to advance Cristianity by such meanes So I confesse I can not see whence it should come more probably then from Montanus or some of his fellow Prophets as he conjectureth For though he hath failed of his usuall diligence in clearing the difficulties which the account of time raiseth how Justine Martyrs Apology and Hermes his Pastor should borrow from Montanus yet doe I not see why Montanus might not begin to declare himselfe by it before the date of them But neither doth my businesse require or my modell allow me to debate it For supposing Justine Martyr or Clemens or Tertullian or Lactantius or many more particular writers were induced to allege it as for the advantâ—ge of the common Christianity He that sees not how
trample Paganisme under feet after the conversion of Constantine Certainely nothing can be named so correspondent to that honour which is prophesied for them that suffered for Gods law under Antiochus Epiphanes Dan. XII Is not all this honour properly derivative from the honour of God and our Lord Christ and relative to his service For that is the worke for which Christians assemble and for those assemblies the Church stands as I have often said The honour of the Saints but the occasion circumstance or furniture for it Neither is it to be doubted that the Saints in happinesse pray for the Church militant and that they have knowledge thereof if they goe not out like sparkles and are kindled againe when they resume their bodies which I have showen our common Christianity allowes not For is it possible to imagine that knowing any thing that is knowing God and themselves they should not know that God hath a Church in the world upon the consumation whereof their consummation dependeth Or is it possible that knowing this and being disposed towards this Church as they ought to be disposed towards it in respect to God they should not intercede with God for the consummation of it and the meanes thereof which is all we can desire I will not use the text of Jeremy XI 1. and Ezek. XIV 13-19 because it is manifest that Moses and Samuel that Noe Daniel and Job are named in them but to put the case that if those men were alive and made intercession for their people they should not prevaile Which is not to say that which I have showed that the Old Testament speakes not out plaine that being alive they doe intercede Therefore they make no consequence I will not use the text of the Gospell Luke XVI 9. Make ye friends of the unrighteous Mamon that when yee faile they may receive you into everlasting Tabernacles Though S. Austine de Civit. I. 27. makes a doubt whether it be by the intercession of his friends that such a man is received Because he makes no doubt that it is in consideration of the charity by which he made them his friends that he is received And therefore in that consideration it must be that they are said to receive him not in consideration of their prayers Of which therefore this text saith nothing But I must needs use the text of the Apoc. V. 8. VIII 3. whereby it appeareth as much that the Church triumphant prayeth for the Church militant as that the saints of the Church triumphant are alive And I wil use these texts of the Old Testament where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and David are in consideration alleged to God in behalf of his people Gen. XXVI 5 24. Ex. XXXII 13. Deut. IX 27. 1. Kings XI 12 32 33 34. XV. 4. 2. Kings VIII 19. XIX 34. XX. 6. Es XXXVII 35. 1. Kings XVIII 36 1 Chron. XXIX 28. For as our Saviour argueth well that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive and shall rise againe because God is not the God of the dead So is the consequence as good that what God doth for their sakes he doth it for their mediation or intercession unlesse he meane to set that on their score which they desire not at his hands The Angels of little children alwaies see the Fathers face in heaven Math. XVIII 10. And there is joy in the presence of Gods Angels over one sinner that repenteth Luke XV. 10. And David saith that the Angell of the Lord pitcheth his tent round about them that feare him and delivereth them Psalme XXV 8. And they are all ministring spirits sent forth to attend upon them that shall be heires of salvation Heb. I. 14. and have they not that affection for those whom God so affecteth as to provide them such attendance not to mediate with their desires to God the effect of that goodnesse which he is so affectionate to bestow upon us An imagination so barbarous cannot possesse any man till he think himselfe beloved of God for hating those that honour Saints and Angels above measure Let them looke to the measure and let them looke how they hate them that observe it not Let them not ground their measure upon a supposition of as little affection in the Saints and Angels for us as in themselves for the Saints and Angels unlesse it be because such a supposition may deserve to deprive them of the benefit of such relations For as for the Church S. Cyprian doubts not when he desires that those who shall happen to depart first be mindfull of them that remaine in their prayers to God Epist I. And the Saints in heaven that are secure of their owne salvation he saith are solicitous for us in his booke de mortalitate S. Jerome saith the same of Heliodorus Epist I. nor is any thing to be faulted of that which he writes against Vigilantius to that purpose S. Austine supposeth that Nebridius prayed for him being dead Confess IX 3. and expects benefit from S. Cypryans prayers de Bapt. V. 7 17. He said afore that we are to be commended by the prayers of the Martyrs and de sanctis Serm. XLVI Debent Martyres aliquid in nobis recognoscere de suis virtutibus ut pro nobis dignentur domino supplicare The Martyrs must take notice of something of their owne vertues in us that they may vouchsafe to become petitioners to God for us And againe contra Faustum XX. 21. the reason why they celebrated the memories of the Saints he assignes that they might be partners in their merits and be helped by their prayers Both which Leo in S. Lam. considers as well the helpe as the example of the Saints and S. Gregory Epist VII 57. Indict II. Rogo omnipotentem Deum ut sua te gratia protegat beati Petri Apostolorum principis intercessione a malis omnibus illi sum servet I beseech Almighty God to protect thee with his grace and through the intercession of S. Peter Chiese of the Apostles keep thee unharmed by any evill It were to no purpose to show what I allow by bringing more for this cannot be disallowed allowing the premises But this being supposed whatsoever may be disputed whether Saints or Angels in this regard may be counted Mediators intercessors or Advocates between God and us will be meere contentions about words holding to the termes hitherto supposed For the intercession of our Lord Christ being grounded upon the worke of redemption the effects of it must be according To make all mankind acceptable to God under the condition which the Gospell declareth To obtain for every man those helps of Grace by which he may or by which he is effectually resolved to undergoe the condition requisite He that knowes the God-heade of Christ to be the ground in consideration whereof the obedience of Christ is acceptable by God to this effect and yet will needs say that Saints or Angels are our Mediators Intercessors or Advocates to
the â—lesh to fall from their own to their husbands or their wives Gods the worshippers whereof they saw prosper in the world Not so those who had undertaken his Crosse and thereupon if faithfully had received his spirit which the Gospell bringeth For so why should the Church think that having Images should seduce those that are such to thinkâ— them the seates of some God head which supposeth a conceite of more Gods then one And upon this supposition proceedeth all that is written â—n the prophesies of Esay and Jeremy in the book of Baruch under the person of Jeremy and in the rest of the prophets in scorne of the Images of the Gentiles To wit that they imagined some Deity contayned and inclosed in them which were indeed meere wood and stone The question that remaines is but onely this whether this power of the Church hath been duely executed and within the bounds of our common Christianity or not For to pretend that the Apostles themselves have put it in use by prescribing that images be had and in Churches would be to contradict all that appeares in the point by the records of the Church For though I be obliged to say that there was never any constitution of the Apostles injoyning the whole Church not to bring any image into any Church because all the Church that is considerable hath sometimes done it yet will it easily appeare there is no act of the whole Church binding all to have them in Churches The council of Elivira Can. XXXVI Placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere ne quod câ—litur in parietibus pingatur It seemed good that there be no pictures in the Churches least that which is worshiped be pictured on the wales The Epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn Bishop of Jerusalem is extant in S. Jerome relating how finding somthing of our Lord Christ painted upon a vaile in a Church of his Diocesse he gave order to teare it which being out of his Diocese he could not have don had he not thought it against Gods Law and therfore no law of the Church And Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 18. relating the statue of our Lord curing the woman that had the issue of blood at Caesaâ—ea Philipi faith it is no marvaile that Gentils converted to the â—aith should honour our Lord and his Apostles for he saith he had sâ—en images of Peter and Paul as well as of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved from their time as the Gentiles used to honour their Saviors or benefactors But had it been against Gods Law would not the Apostles have told them so would they not have believed the Apostles whom they belâ—eved before they were Christians The picture of the good shepheard upon the Chalices of the Church which Tertullian appeales to de Pudicit cap. VII easily shows that they used not his Picture who used an Embleme of Christ for a Picture And you heard S. Austine say that he knew many worshippers of Pictures and Tombes among Christians The true ground and effect of these passages is hard for me to evidence here in a few words I believe S. Austine saw some dow baked Christians doe that at the tombes of Christians which when they were idolaters they did at the tombes of their friends where part of their Idolatries don were to their Ghosts For by that which followes he complains that he saw that excesse of meate and drinke upon the graves of Christians which it is no marvaile if the Idolatries of the Gentiles allowed So that it is no such marvaile that such Christians should worship Pictures as did the Gentiles The Canon is one of the hardest pieces of antiquity that I know The most probable seemes to be this That it followes the reason alleged in Deuteronomy against any image for God because they saw no shape of God So the word cultus seemes strictly to signifie that honour which Christianity tenders immediately to God not that which it may injoine to his creature And their reason will be this because the God head cannot be painted therefore no Pictures in Churches I doe believe there was somthing of the quarrell betweene Iohn of Jerusalem and Epiphanius about Origen upon which Theophilus of Alexandria heaved S. Chrosystome out of the Sea of Constantinople in that act of tearing the vaile But I believe Epiphanius acted according to his opinion in it and an opinion that he owned to all the world what ever the rest of the Church did for we see not that proceeding against Iohn of Jerusalem as against S. Chrosystome Eusebius might thinke those statues of our Lord and his cure those pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul more ancient then indeed they were But neither doth he charge any Idolatry upon them nor is there any question in the case but of having pictures in private not in the Church That after this time Churches were everywhere trimmed with the stories of the Saints and the Passions of the Martyrs I need not repeat much to prove the controversy in the East about the worshipping of them is evidence enough that the use of them went forward but with such contradiction that some held them Idoles and broke them in peeces who were there upon called Iconoclastâ— others worshipped them who after many attempts of the contrary party prevailed at length in a Council at Nicaea thence called the VII General Council with the concurrence of the Pope That the decree of the Councill injoines no Idolatry notwithstanding whatsoever prejudice to the contrary I must maintaine as unquestionable supposing the premises So far is it from leaving any roome for the imagination of any false God head to be represented by the images which it allowes that it expressely distinguisheth that honour done the image of our Lord Christ to be equâ—vâ—cally called worship that is to be onely so called but not to signifie the esteeme of God which he that believes the Holy Trinity can no way attâ—ibute to the image of our Lord supposing not granting that it were lawfull to honoure the image of our Lord not with any gesture or word signifying any God head inclosed in it which the idolatries of the heathen did signifie but that it is the picture of that man who also is God which he who believes the Trinity and puts off his hat and bowes the knee to the image of our Lord must needs signifie I say this shall be no â—dolatry because whether the worship of the image or of him whose image it is necessarily it is no worship of God but proceeds from an esteem that the image is a contemptible creature but that the man whom it signifies is God I say upon these termes it is not possible that it should be Idolatry to worship this image Because though the words or the gesture which are used may signifie the honour due to God alone yet the profession under which they are used necessarily limits them to the honour of that which is not
privacies yea in lâ—â—civious postures and the habits of their mistresses as promising themselves protection from them in their debauches In fine by this meanes they are come to make images of God not pictures of his apparitions in the Scripture but of the Father and of the holy Trinity A thing so expresly forbidden by the Law For the Arke of the Covenant had on it indeed the figures that signified Angels the Throne of God it self signifying Christ in whom God is propitious to mankind Therefore they were to worship towards the Ark. But the majesty of God was hereby understood to be like nothing visible they were onely taught where to find him propitious Now setting up their images and injoyning images to be worshipped the construction is so reasonable that they honour the image with the honour due to God alone that it is not possible to make any other reasonable construction of that which they doe Against the II. Councile of Nicaea all this and without any order of the present Church of Rome but so that were not men sensible by whom they were authorized it were as easily disowned on the one side as it were hard on the other side to perswade men to do it Here it will be said these are probable reasons such as in moral matters may alwayes be made on both sides for what is there concerning humane affairs that is not disputable But the decree of the Church being once interposed by the second Councile of Nicaea it behoveth all Sons of the Church to depart from their own reasons because the unity of the Church as a Body can by no meanes be maintained unlesse inferiours yeild to the judgement of superiours An objection which I must owne because I have acknowledged the argument of it hitherto and have no where been straightened by it But I say therefore that the Power of the Church hath never been exercised by a voluntary consent in any decree injoyning the worship of Images For the having of Images in Churches I acknowledge there is a clear and unquestionable consent of the Church visible though as I said afore there appeared dissatisfaction in some parts which appeares to be voided by the subsequent consent of the whole And I finde sufficient and clear reason for it the adorning of Churches for the solemnity of Gods service the instruction of the simple that cannot reade in any booke by the pictures of things related in the Bible and the acts and sufferings of the Saints and Martyrs the admonishing of all whether learned or unlearned of that which they knew before the stirring up of devotion towards God by being admonished whether of things related in the Scriptures or in the relations concerning the Saints and Martyrs which the Church justifieth In a matter subject to the power of the Church as I have showed this to be the light of common reason attesting these considerations more ought not to be demanded And therefore though the Homilyagainst perill of Idolatry contain a wholsome doctrine in this particular I must have leave to think it failes as it evidently doth in others But all those reasons are utterly impertinent to the worshipping of Images For suppose the Image of our Lord or his Crosse may reasonably determine the circumstance of place where a man may pray to God as I said of the holy Eucharist the worship so tendered will be manifestly the worship of God and have no further to do with the image then a furniture or instrument not which a man serves but whereby he serves God And therefore Saint Gregory supposing and as it seems taking no notice of him that prayes before the image of Christ upon the Crosse in his Epistle to Secundinus In another Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles forbiddeth all worshipping of Images as making them subjects capable of any worship that may be called religious as proceeding from or injoyned by that virtue For the honour of the image passeth not upon the principall any otherwise in this case then as the presence thereof may be a signe to shew why we worship the principall where it is Which the images of Saints are not fit to signify because their principals the Saints are not capable of it But setting aside all dispute what ought to be done because the question is what the Church hath decreed that it ought to be done I say the decree of the second Councile of Nicaea obligeth not the Church at present because it never had the force of a sentence I have said in due place that all decrees of Counciles are but prejudices no sentences The reason whereof is as necessary as evident supposing the premises For the consent of the whole is that which gives any decree the force of a decree as you saw by the instance of the Council of Sardica The consent of the representatives in a Council is a presumption of the consent of the whole but it is not the formall consent of it No Council ever was composed of representatives proportionable in number of votes to the weight of each part to the whole The ground of a presumption making the calling of Councils worth the while is because whatsoever may come in consideration is supposed to have been wayed there and the expresse consent had of the present against which the absent cannot weigh In the II. Councile of Nicaea the Popes Legates consented and I granted afore the West was wont to receive the conclusions from Rome but not tied so to do in case the matter required further examination as in this case For within a while after a Council of Charles the Greats Dominions then the farre greatest part of the Western Church assembled at Francford condemnes the Council of Nicaea allowes the having of images in Churches as S. Gregory had done and in like maner condemnes all worshipping of them Here was a fair stop to the recalling of the Church of Romes concurrence to it Which though it was not effected yet under Ludovicus Pius son of Charles the Great an Embassy â— comes from the Easterne Emperor with a leter yet extant signifying many orrible abuses which the decree had produced and desiring his concurrence and the concurrence of the Church under him to stop the current of them A Treaty being had hereupon by the Prelates of his dominion the resolution-is yet extant in the negative under the name of the Synod of Paris grounded upon consent with the Fathers By this and by divers particulars laid forth by the Archbishop of Spalate 7. de Republ. Eccles XII 59. 71. it appeares that the worship of images never came in force by virtue of this Conncile of Nicea And amongst them it is not to be forgotten that the acts thereof were not known in the West as appeareth by the extravagancies of Thomas Aquinas and the Schoole Doctors that followed him in determining that images and the true Crosse of Christ are to be worshipped with the same honour as their principals
The image of Christ therefore and his true Crosse with the honour due to God alone though in reference to God Had the Acts of the Councile been known in the West as they would have been had it been admitted these men would never have gone about to bring in an opinion so extravagant from the doctrine of the Councile Which shewes plainly that it is the See of Rome that hath imployed the whole interest thereof right or wrong to give that force to the decree which of it self it had not You have besides a work of Jonas Bishop of Orleans against Claudius Bishop of Turin you have the testimony of Walafridus Strabo allowing images but disallowing all worship of them Nay in the time of Fredrick Barbarussa Nicetas relating how he took Philippopolis notes that the Armenians stirred not for the taking of the City having confidence in the Almans as agreeing with them in religion because neither of them worshipped images De Imperio Isaaci Angeli II. Therefore in removing the force of this decree it is not the authority of the whole Church but the will of the See of Rome that is transgressed And that power of the See of Rome by which this is done is not that regular preeminence thereof over other Churches which cannot decree any thing in the matter of a generall Councile but by a generall Councile either expresly assembled or included in the consent of those Churches whereof it consists But of that nothing is or can be alledged It remaines therefore that it is come to effect by that infinite power thereof which the whole Church acknowledgeth not and therefore in effect by the meanes which it imployeth to justify such a pretense I say no more of the ceremonies of Gods service I maintaine no further effect of them then the ground for them warrants The composition of our nature makes them fit and necessary meanes to procure that attention of mind that devotion of Spirit which God is to be served with even in private much more at the publicke and solemn assemblies of the Church Whatsoever is appointed by the Church for the circumstance furniture solemnity or ceremony of Gods service by virtue of the trust reposed in it is thereby to be accounted holy and so used and respected The memories of Gods Saints and Martyrs are fit occasions to determine the time and place and other circumstances of it And the honour done them in recording their acts and sufferings with the conversation of our Lord upon earth whether out of the Scriptures or otherwise a fit meanes to render his solemne service recommendable for the reverence which it is performed with If in stead of circumstances and instruments the Saints of God or Images or any creature of God whatsoever become the object of that worship for which Churches were built or for which Christians assemble by that meanes there may be roome to let in that Idolatry at the back door which Christianity shutteth out at the great gate Whether or no it be a fault in Christians that they cannot do violence to their senses and count those things holy as instruments of Gods service because so they should be which they are convinced in common reason that they are used to his disservice I dispute not now But without dispute woe to them by whom offences come And they who prosecute offences given without measure are they by whom offences come The charge of superstition is a goodly pretense for abolishing ceremonies But when not onely the reverence of Gods service but also the offices of it are abolished withall then is there cause to say that the service of God it selfe seeems superstitious To fit and sleep out a sermon or censure a prayer is more for a mans ease then to fall down on his knees to humble his soul at Gods footstool and to withdraw his minde from the curiosity of knowledge or language to the sense of Gods majesty and his own misery It is then for our ease but not for Gods service that the ceremonies thereof should be counted superstitious CHAP. XXXI The ground for a Monasticall life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceeddings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts of the Church And in the use of the Scriptures I Cannot make an end by distinguishing the bounds of Ecclesiasticall and Secular power in Church matters till I have resolved whether or no the body of it the materials of which it consists be sufficiently distinguished by the estates of Clergy and People Or whether there be a third estate of Monkery constituted by Gods Law intitling the Church to a right in those who professe it upon the ground of Christianity and in order to the effect of it For the resolution hereof opens the ground as well of that reverence which the people owe the Clergy as of that instruction and good example which the Clergy owe the people the neglect whereof is that which forfeiteth the very being of the Church that is the unity of it I am not now to dispute whether it be lawfull for a Christian to vow to God the vow of continence or not having proved in the second book that it is And showed in what sense the perfection of a Christian may be understood to consist in the professing and performing of it The case of Ananias and Sapphira hath been drawn into consequence not onely by Saint Basil as I showed you in the first book but also by Saint Gregory of Rome Epist I. 33. quoted by Gratiane XVII Quaest I. Cap. III. though acknowledging that community of goods was a part of the profession of the Christians then at Jerusalem it cannot be said that they who professed this community of goods did professe that which is strictly called Monkery For they letted not to continue married all Monks professing continence But I have besides made it to appear that all were not tied then at Jerusalem to give up all their goods to the stock of the Church but onely what the common Christianity should prompt every man to contribute to the subsistence of the Church and Christianity which what it required was visible But I do not therefore yield that the argument is not of force so far as the case and therefore the reason drawn from it takes place All Christians consecrate themselves to the service of God by being Baptized and made Christians By that they stand obliged to consecrate their goods to the subsistence of his Church as the necessities thereof become visible If it appear to be part of this Christianity to consecrate a mans self to God further by professing such a
course of life as he thinks may give him best meanes and opportunity of discharging the common profession of Christians though all Christians are not tied to professe the same shall he not stand bound to make it good upon the same ground for which Ananias and Sapphira are condemned in withdrawing that which they professed to consecrate to God But Saint Pauls instruction to refuse the younger widdows hath no answer Because when they grow wanton against Christ they will marry Having damnation as having set their first faith at nought 1 Tim. V. 11 12. For what can that first faith be but their promise ingaged to the Church whereby they dedicate themselves to the service thereof in the state of widows Under the Old Testament it is no mistake of the Jewes to believe that all Gods people were ordinarily under the precept of increase and multiply requiring of them the state of marriage Saint Angustine and other Fathers of the Church have found markes of it in the Old Testament It is not therefore to be imagined that there is either precept or precedent for the state of Monkes in the Old Testament Nor yet to be denied that Nazarites especially from the mothers womb that those women who kept guard at the Tabernacle Exod. XXXVIII 5. 1 Sam. II. 22. as Anna the daughter of Phanuel that departed not from the Temple serving God with fasting and prayer day and night Luke II. 37. that the Rechabites are instances and precedents of some principles and ingredients of their profession even under the Old Testament For if man and wife should now dedicate themselves to attend upon the poor sick and helplesse in hospitals or the like they would be no lesse The Prophets though under no perpetuall tye lived in a kind of Community with their disciples not for that knowledge of the Law which the Rulers of the people professed whom they were ordinarily in difference with and often times persecuted to death by them but for those rudiments of Christianity which by their meanes were kept alive under the Law The Rechabites being of the race of the Kenites which it seems upon Moses invitation to Jethro tooke part with the Israelites in the Land of Promise under the condition of worshipping onely the true God knowing what all strangers are subject to living under the dominion and protection of strangers received a Law from their predecessors not to have further to do in the world then their subsistence by the simplest sort of life by being shepherds required And being commended for obeying their Rule by the Prophet Jeremy from Gods mouth have much justified them who under Christianity do voluntarily put themselves under the like Rule out of a pretense the better to discharge their Christianity by that meanes During the time of our Lord there was a third sect of people among the Jewes whom we find no mention of in the Scriptures of the New Testament because they lived retyred out of the world some married others in single life both under a most strict observation of their Rule which you have in Josephus under the name of Essanes It is well enough known that Eusebius finding a relation written by Philo the Jew of that manner of life which they used in Egypt hard by Alexandria hath reported them for Christians and how this report hath been disowned of late yeares as a meer mistake of Eusebius or an ungrounded conjecture I who have showed that it is possible Philo himself may have been a Christian must not reject the opinion of those who think they might really be Christians converted by the first arrivall of Christianity in Aegypt For in the case which I spoke of there is no cause why they might not be both Jewes and Christians the separation of the Church from the Synagogue not being yet formed and when it was formed continue Christians forsaking the Synagogue And truly the mention of Virgines as of a peculiar order visible in the Church is so ancient in the writings of Tertulliane Methodius whose Book of Virginity is published of late and Saint Cypriane that it must needs be impossible to find any beginning for it For Tertulliane writing his Book De velandis Virginibus to prove that Order not exempt from Saint Pauls injunction that women vail their faces at divine service appeales to the custome of the Church at Corinth to which Saint Paul writ it as having alwayes observed it in Virgines And therefore the same Saint Paul directing him who had resolved to keep his daughter a Virgine 1 Cor. VII 37. seems to suppose this resolution to imply that education whereby she might be inabled so to continue For it is true the profession is difficult but not impossible for him to go commendably through with that by Gods grace undertakes it with that zeal which the end requires I do much admire the resolution of Gennadius De ' Dogmat. Eccles cap. LXIV that it is not the meer love of a continent estate which Christianity esteems unlesse it be chosen as the meanes and opportunity of serving God with the more freedome otherwise signifying rather the declining of mariage then the love of Chastity For. so it is indeed he that chuses a continent estate to avoid the difficulties of mariage seems rather to tempt God and to expose himself to many desertions waving the remedy which he hath provided But he who trusts to Gods assistance for the accomplishment of that intention which Christianity commendeth though it command not may assure himselfe of it not destituting his prayers of the indeavours which he may and is to contribute This being the case of particular persons that withdraw themselves from the world to make their salvation the more assured the interesse which accrues to the Church in them that do so seems to be no more then may be grounded upon the profession of such a purpose For so long as it is secret between God and the soul the Church can have nothing to do in it But being once professed and known to take hold the transgression thereof becoming notorious is a sinne which owes an account to the Church Not that the manner of this profession is any way provided for but by the custome of the Church For he that should actually and visibly declare such an intention by really entering upon the course and living according to it would become necessarily liable to that account for the transgressing of it which the solemnity renders due And therefore that solemnity reduceth it self to the nature of those ceremonies whereby actions of great consequence wherein the authority of the Church is exercised ought in reason to get reverence For by that meanes the parties concerned receive a due impression of the charge they undertake when God and his Church become rather parties then witnesses to it In the mean time they remaine in the Church what they were before private Christians onely professing such a course of life onely ingaged to God in
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
by And besides this consequence another will rise that this is the sense of all Christendome to wit where Christians are governed by Christians that there is no such thing as any power of the Church by Gods Law because all Christendome agrees Soveraignes in doing subjects in admitting that it is limitable by the Secular which cannot limit Gods Law but its own This being the force of that objection which is so largly pursued in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. my answer is That having showed how the decrees of the Apostles themselves as for the mater of them are limitable and determinable by the Church to such circumstances as may make them usefull to the Church for another state then that for which they were first made I am to grant that the Lawes also and other acts of the Church may be limited by the secular power as for the execution and exercise of them For as the Society of the Church and all the acts thereof done in virtue of Gods Charter by which it stands supposing Christianity so Christianity supposeth common-wealths that is to say the government of this world in and by those Soveraignties which subsisted when Christianity came into the world or may lawfully come to subsist afterwards For not to dispute for the present whether civill Governement subsist by the law of God or by humane consent seeing it cannot be said to subsist by the same act that is by the same declaration of Gods will by which the Church that is Christianity subsisteth it is manifest that the title by which the Church standeth must not be inconsistent with that title by which civill governement deriveth it self from the will of God And therefore that they may and must suppose one an other Who ever challenges to the Church a power in all civil causes and over all persons to ordaine and by force of their armes to execute what the Church that is those that have right to conclude the Church shall thinke the consideration of Christianity shall require he I grant erecteth a Power destructive to the civill govâ—nement Which to stand tyed to execute a decree that may be contrary to the decree of those that governe is necessarily inconsistent with But that which I say is this That the Church hath power to determine all maters the determination whereof is requisite to mainetain the communion of Christians in the service of God and to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that communion But no power to give execution to them by force of armes which the Soverain power of every state onely moveth Supposing for the present that no armes can be moved but originally from the soveraign nor any thing executed by any force which is not ultimately resolved into the power of the sword which the Soveraige beareth as known to common sense And by consequence I say that the Soveraign power having right to make the acts of the Church Lawes of the state by declaring to concur to the execution of them by the force which it moveth must needs have right to judge whether they be such as Christian powers ought or may concur to execute and accordingly limit the exercise of them But thereby I intend not to grant that Christian powers may not exceed their bounds of right in opposing and suppressing the effects oâ— those acts which may be duely don by the Church nor to dispute this point upon supposition that the particulars related in that X. Chapter I de Synedriis ought to have the esteem of precedents as things well done and within the limits of secular power in Church maters For I have already granted that the power of the Church that is to say of those that pretend it on behalfe of the Church hath so far transgressed the bounds as to suffer the temporall power of the Church in ordine ad spiritualia to be disputed and held being really destructive to all civill Governement and to act too many things not to be justified but upon suspition of it And therefore I think I demand but reason when I take leave â—o suppose that soverâ—â—gne powers are subject to erre as all men are especially in so nice a point as is their owne interest in Church matteâ—s And that these Errors may have proceeded to the hinderance of Christianity even by such acts as were intended to have the force of standing Lawes But what hath been well or ill done in this kind is not my businesse here to dispute That which I have to doe now is in generall to determine in what consideration the civill power which the Church of England granteth to be soveraign in all causes and over all persons both Ecclesiastical Civill in the dominions thereof giveth the acts of the Church the force of the Lawes of the state Which I have already expressed to be two-fold As soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever may seeme to importe an attempt upon the right of it whâ—ch subsisting without the Church iâ— to be maintained against all incrochment of whomsoever may claime in behalfe of the Church And as Christians because civill powâ—r being presupposed to the being of the Church which standeth upon supposition of the truth of Christianity the sword of Christians stâ—nd obliged to protect the Church against all pretenses For seing the society of the Church is a part of Christianity as hath been showed of necessity it followeth that Christian poweâ—s stand obliged by their Christianitie both to protect those that are lawfully possessed of right in the behalfe of the Church of their dominions in the exercise of it and also to restraine them when their acts whether expressely attempted or maintained by use of long time prove prejudiciall to that common Christianity which the being of the church presupposeth But as this necessarily presupposeth that those that claim on behalf of the Church may proceed to actions so prejudiciall to the state as may deserve to be punished or restrained by civill temporal penalties of all degrees So wil it necessarily infer that civill powers may proceed to excesses not onely in their particular actions but also in violating and oppressing the Church that the Church may be obliged to proceede against them by cutting them off from the communion of the Church so that therein subjects do stand obliged not to obey them in violating and oppressing the Church and to abstaine from communicating with them in the mysteries of Christianity continuing neverthelesse obliged to them in all the offices which the maintenance of the state which Christianity presupposeth will require at the hands of good subjects This being said I will summon the common sense of Christendom to give sentence of the truth or likenesse to truth of this argument All Christian Princes and States doe limit the use of Ecclesiasticall power within their owne dominions Therefore they doe not believe any such thing as a Church or any power derived from any Law of God by
of the Church nor doe originally be long to it to sentence And all this not distinguishing these severall titles hath been usually understood by the name of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or the juâ—isdiction of the Church Neither is there any doubt to be made that not onely France in their appeales from the abuse of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which are there warranted of course but also all Christian states as England in their premunires and injunctions have alwaies provided to redresse the wrong that might be don by the abuse thereof Nor doe I doubt that Spaine it selfe hath made use of such courses as may appeare not onely â—y great volumes upon that subject by Salgado de Somoza and Jeronymo de Cevallos whom I have not seene but more lively by the letters of Cardinall de Ossat where there is so much menâ—ion of the differences between the See of Rome and the ministers of that Crowne in Italy about the jurisdiction of the Church But will all this serve for an argument that there is no such thing as a Church no such jurisdiction as that of the Church in the opinion of Christendome but that which stands by the act of Christian powers because they all pretend to limit the abuse of it When as the very name of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in the title of those books those actions is sufficient demonstration that they acknowledge and suppose a right to jurisdiction in the Church which they pretend so to limit as neither the Church nor the rest of their subjects to have cause to complaine of wrong by the abuse of it Whether they attaine their pretence or no remaining to be disputed upon the principles hitherto advanced by any man that shall have cause to enter into any treaty of the particulars Neither is the publishing of Erastus his booke against Excommunication at London to be drawne into the like consequence that those who allowed or procured it allowed the substance of that he maintaineth so long as a sufficient reason is to be rendred for it otherwise For at such time as the Presbyterian pretenses were so hot under Queen Elizabeth it is no marvaile if it was thought to show England how they prevailed at home First because he hath advanced such arguments as are really effectuall against them which are not yet nor ever will be answered by them though void of the positive truth which ought to take place in stead of their mistakes And besides because at such time as Popes did what them listed in England it would have been to the purpose to show the English how Macchiavell observes that they were hampred at home And for the like reason when the Geneva platforme was cried up with such zeale here it was not amisse to show the world how it was esteemed under their own noses in the Cantons and the Palatinat And here I cannot forbeare to take notice of the publishing of Grotius his book de Jure summarum potestatum in sacris after his death because that also is drawn into consequence For it is well enough knowne that at his being in Eâ—gland before the Synod at Dort he left it with two great learned prelates of the Church of England Lanctlot Lord Bishop of Winchester and Iohn Lord Bishop of Norwich to peruse And that both of them agreeing in an advice that it should not be published he constantly observed the same till he was dead So that though the writing of it was his act yet the publishing was not But the act of those that would have it appeare that his younger works doe not perfectly agree with the sense of his riper yeares He that in the preface to his Annotations on the Gospels shall reade him disclaiming whatsoever the consent of the Church shall be found to refuse will never believe that he admitted no Corporation of the Church without which no consent thereof could have been observed And therefore may well allow him to change his opinion without giving the world expresse account of it I will adde hereupon one consideration out of the letter of late learned Hales of Eton Colledge from the Synod at Dort to the English Embassador at the Hague For Grotius was then every man knowes one that adhered to the Holland Remonstrants He speaketh of denying them the copie of a decree of the states read them in the Synod December 11. This at the first seemed to me somewhat hard but when I considered that those were the men which heretofore in prejudice of the Church so extreamely flattered the civill magistrate I could not but think this usage a fit reward for such a service And that by a just judgement of God themselves bad the first experience of those inconveniencies which naturally arise out of their doctrine in this behalfe It remaines onelly as concerning this point that I give account of the article of the Church of England which acknowledgeth the King Supreme Governour in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill to this effect as having all that Right in maters of Religion which the pious Kings of Gods ancient people Christian Emperors and Princes have alwaies exercised in the Church And the account that I am to give is what the meaning of this collective which hath been exercised by the Kings of Judah and Christian Princes must be For I have showed that it is not to be granted that Christian Princes may doe that in Christianity which the Kings of â—srael did under the Law Because the Law was given to one people for a condition of the Land of promise the Gospell to all Nations for the condition of everlasting happinesse It is therefore consequently to be said That in as much as the reason and ground upon which the right which those Kings are found to exercise under the Law holds the same under the Gospell so far that power which the Church of England ascribes to the King in Church maters is the same which those Kings are found to exercise in the scriptures But wherein the reason holds not the same insomuch it is necessary to distinguish and acknowledge a difference It seemes to me that when the Law refers the determination of all things questionable concerning the Law in the last resort to the Priests and Levits and to the Judge that shall be in those daies at Jerusalem or the place which God should choose Deut. XVIII 8-12 the reason why it speaks indefinitely of Priest and Judge is because it intended to include the soveraigne whether High Priest who from after the Captivity untill the coming of Herod was chiefe of the people or Chief Judge whether those that are so called who as I said afore were manifestly soveraignes or after them the Kings so that by this Law nothing could be determined without the King either by himselfe or by subordinate Judges And the reason is evident For the penalty of transgressing this law being death otherwise we must allow inferior Judges the power of
it shall appear by Eusebius that the Councile of Antiochia having created a new Bishop and adjudged the possession of the Bishops Palace to him which Paulus Samosatenus defended by force and the Emperor being appealed to by the parties for execution adjudged the possession to him whom the Bishop of Rome and Italy should account lawfull Bishop I suppose I shall not need many words to show any reasonable man the very termes which I hold in this sentence to wit that the matter of it was determined by the Church the force and execution of it came from the Power of the Empire I had purposed here to examine some of those instances produced in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. some passages of Church Writers alledged in the Oxford Doctors Paraenefis to prove the Ecclesiasticall power meerely the effect of the secular because limitable by it But having debated thus farre the bounds between Gods Law and the Lawes of the Church and found the Law of the Church to be nothing but the limitation of Gods Law the force whereof comes from Gods generall Law in founding the Church I find not the least cause to distrust him that admitteth it as one to be turned aside with pretenses of so vast consequence upon such slight appearances I shall therefore thus turn him loose to apply the generall ground upon which I proceed to the particulars that may be alledged out of the ancient Church Onely one I must not leave behinde me the contest between the Emperors and the Popes about the Investâ—â—ures of Churches as carrying in it the meanes of changing the Regular Power of the Pope which I owne into the pretense of that infinite power which infallibility speaketh Yet is it not my purpose to state the case in debate because it would require the examining of many records in point of fact not advancing the discovery of the right a whit more then supposing it stated For supposing the investiture of a Church to signifie a right of contradicting an Election or to signify a right of delivering possession no man admitting the premises can deny that all Princes and States that are Christiane have â—â— them a right to do both though the terme of Investiture seem properly to signify onely the latter as signifying the ceremony of investing some man in the rights of his Church For if the Church be protected in the rights of it by the Lawes of the Land as upon the premises it cannot be denied that upon the States acknowledging the Church as founded by God it ought to be and must needs be protected all the reason in the World will require that the secular power be inabled to except against any mans person as prejudicall to the State and to render no account of such exception to any man as having no superiour in that trust to whom to render it But if under the title of Investiture the right of electing and consecrationg originally resident in the Clergy and People of each Church and the Bishops of the Province be seized into the hands of the secular power by the force thereof constraining each party to do their own parts in admitting the nomination thereof whether allowing it or not whatsoever trouble any Soveraigne procure in such a cause is meeâ— wrong and in a wrong cause The foundation of the Church setling the rights that concurre to the doing of it upon the qualities which it self createth But this is not therefore to say that the Pope or all the Church hath any right to depose such a Prince or to move warre against such a State by what meanes soever it may be done Because that is the effect of temporall power that is soveraigne which the Church hath not in point of right but usurpeth in point of fact by so doing He that can injoyn another man either to eject a Prince or destroy a State upon what terms soever he may dispose of it when that is done as he shall make the tenures of this world to depend upon Christianity so he makes himself Soveraigne in the world that ownes him in the doing it upon the same title of Christianity So the Popes had certainly a wrong cause in stirring warre which they had no title to do The Emperors whether they had a right or a wrong cause which God would punish by suffering the Popes to move warre without a title the state of the case must judge though for the most part in warres both parties are in the wrong insisting upon that which they have no right to insist upon for the termes of peace Let us consider what brought the Popes to this height of really and actually claiming temporall power over Soveraignties that is to be Soveraigne over Soveraignes by moving warre to destroy Princes and States I will suppose here the defection of the Italian forces from the Emperour Leo Isaurus for ejecting all images out of Churches and that he in reprisall for it seized the possessions of the Church of Rome in his dominions and translated the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall through the same upon his Church of Constantinople For in reprisall for this Pepin whose usurpation of the Crown of France Pope Zachary had allowed at the request of Pope Steven constraining the Lâ—mbards to render or to forbear those parts of the Empire which the Emperors at Constantinople were not able to maintaine any more against them bestowed them upon the Church of Rome under his own protection as the case sufficiently shewes especially admitting the Charter of Ludovieus Pius his Grandchilde to be but the confirmation of his Fathers and Grandfathers acts saving the difference of that title under which they were done For the Charter of Ludovicus Pius in Sigonins de Regno Italiae IV. manifestly reserving the Soveraignty to himself and his successors remits both the fruits and the administration of them to the Church charging himselfe to protect it in the same Which burthen we must needs understand that Pepin by his grant did undertake seeing that in point of fact the Church could neither undertake to hold them against the Lombardâ— nor against the Empire which till this act it acknowledged Soveraigne whatsoever in point of right it might do The act of Charles the Great coming between these two upon the ruine of the Lombards that is his own Soveraignty in reason must needs seem to have given the forme to the act of his son The power of this line decaying in Italy and those who had attempted to succeed it failing it is no marvaile if among the States of Italy that contracted with the Germanes to invest them in the same Soveraignty which Charles the Great and his line as Kings of Lombardy by conquest or as declared Emperor by the City of Rome the Head whereof was then the Pope whatsoever that declaration might signify the Pope in behalf of the City and Church of Rome appeared most considerable While the Germanes through their strength at home were able to
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
so that the precept concerns the Church no more then that grace appears But that the effect of it reaches to all ages of the Church abating that which depended upon the miraculous graces proper to the Apostles time For suppose remission of sinne past warranted the sick by the Keyes of the Church that have passed upon him Yet all Christians are to assure themselves that their spirituall enemies are most busie about them in that extremity Whither out of despair to prevail if not then or out of hope then to prevail Their malice being heightned to the utmost attempt of casting him down by the extremity of that instance God forbid then that the Prayers of the Church should be counted unnecessary in such an instance though the remission of sinne be provided for otherwise For all obstructions to Gods grace requisite in so great weaknesse to overcome being the effect and consequence of sinne Neither can it be said that the Apostle attributeth the remission of sinne to the Unction by the promise which he annexeth to the injunction whereby he imployes the Keyes of the Church to that end Nor can it be indured in a Christian to count the removing of them unnecessary and superfluous especially the patient being so disposed and in such a capacity for the effect of them by submitting to the ministery of the Church for the remission of his sinne And therefore certainly as it is necessary to presume that the promise of bodily health is not absolute and generall but where it pleaseth God to give evidence of his presence in and to his Church by the effect of his temporall blessings So that health of mind necessary to resist the tempter with which Christianity obliges us to suppose that Christians prayed for with bodily health the Prayers of the Church are not effectuall to obtain but upon supposition of that disposition which the Church requireth and that procured by the Keyes of the Church supposing the party obliged to have recourse to the Church for it How well this opinion agreeth with the sense of the Catholick Church I have argument enough both in the sayings of the Fathers whereby they express the reason of anointing the sick and in the practice of the Church Origen Homil. II. in Levit. Est adhuc dura laboriosa per paenitentiam remissio peccatorum cum lavat peccator in lachrymis stratum suum fiunt ei lachrymae suae panes die ac nocte cum non erubescit sacerdoti domini judicare peccatum suum quaerere medicinam secundum eum qui ait Dixi pronunciabo adversum me iniquitatem meam domino tu remisisti impietatem cordis mei In quo impletur illud quod Apostolus dicit Si quis autem infirmatur vocet Presbyteros Ecclesiae imponant ei manus ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infiâ—num si in peccatis fuerit remittentur ei There is yet a hard and painfull remission of sinnes by Penance when the sinner washeth his Couch with tears and his tears become his bread day and night and when he is not ashamed to declare his sinne o the Priest of God and seek his cure according to him that saith I said I will declare my sinne to the Lord against my selfe and thou forgavest the impiety of my heart Wherein is also fulfilled that which the Apostle saith But if a man be sick let him send for the Priests of the Church and let them lay hands on him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he be in sinne it shall be forgiven him Here he gives Priests the power of forgiving sinne from S. James S. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio â— II. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not onely when they regenerate us by Baptism but afterwards also have they power to remit sinnes For is any man sick among you saith he let him call the Pastors of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of Lord. Shall we then ascribe the effects of this power to the bodily act of anointing with oyl or to their Prayers not supposing that disposition to be procured by their ministery which the promise of remission supposeth Neither of both will stand with the premises seeing the Prayers of the Church cannot be effectuall to them that submit hot to the Ministery of the Church when it becomes uecessary for the procuring of that disposition which qualifies for remission of sinne so that the sense of the ancient Church declared here by Origen and S. Chrysostome must be understood to proceed upon consideration of the power of the Keys exercised upon the sick person that receiveth the unction with prayers for his ghostly and bodily health S. Augustine de Tempore Serm. CCXV Quoties aliqua infirmitas supervenerit corpus sanguinem Christi ille qui aegrotat accipiat Et inde corpusculum suum ungat ut illud quod scriptum est impleatur in eo Infirmatur aliquis Videte fratres quia qui in infirmitate ad Ecclesiam accurrerit corporis sanitatem recipere peccatorum indulgentiam merebitur obtinere As oft as any infirmity comes let him that is sick receive the Body and Blood of Christ And then let him anoint his Body that that which is written may be fulfilled in him If any man be sick See brethren that he who shall have recourse to the Church in sickness shall be thought worthy to obtain both the recovery of bodily health and indulgence for his sinnes Now I ask whether the Rule of the Church will allow the communion of the Eucharist to him that hath not recourse to the Church for the cure of his sinne when he ought to have recourse to it For if we suppose the Eucharist to be given him upon confession of sinne then the reason which I pretend appears If without it is because nothing obliges him to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church at that time And so the prayers of the Church and the Eucharist and the unction are therefore effectual because the Church rightly supposeth him qualified for remission of sinnes without recourse to other means For daily sinnes and hourly are abolished by daily and hourly devotions with detestation of the same and yet more firmly abolished by partaking of these offices ministred by the Church Here I must give notice that I undertake not that this Sermon is S. Augustines own which I see is censured among those pieces that have crept under his name by mistake or by imposture For the stile also seemeth to make it some hundreds of years later then his time But I think it more advantage to my opinion that it held footing in the Church so long after S. Austin then that it appeareth to have been the sense of his time For the sense of the now Church of Rome that remission of sin
is to be attributed to the Unction appears to be of so much the later date And therefore I alledge also the words that are quoted out of the Book de rectitudine Catholicae conversationis among S. Austines Works Qui aegrotat in solâ dei miserecordiâ confidat Eucharistiam cum fide devotione accipiat oleumque benedictum fideliter ab Ecclesiâ petat unde corpus suum ungatur Et secundum Apostolum oratio fidei salvabit infirnuim alleviabit eum dominis Nec solum corporis sed animae sanitatem accipiet Let him that is sick trust onely in the mercy of God and receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion and faithfully send for the consecrated oyl from the Church that his body may be anointed with it And according to the Apostle the Prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall give him ease And he receive health not onely of Body but soul also This indeed is something like that which they say now in the Church of Rome that our originall inclination to evill dulnesse and faintnesse to good and aversenesse of the mind from spirituall exercises are those reliques of sinne which this Unction cureth In the mean time remission of sinne is or ought to be presupposed by the Keyes of the Church passed upon him that duly receives the Eucharist Nor can that health of the mind which cureth these infirmities be attributed to the Unction which pretends bodily health but to the prayers of the Church prescribe to be made for the sick in that estate And since those that deduce the office of anoiniting the sick and by consequence the effect of it from the practice of the Apostles curing with oyl as Bede Theophylact and Euthynius upon Mark VI. how will they justifie the spirituall promise of remission of sinne to depend upon the bodily act of anointing the sick but upon supposition of that disposition of the soul which qualifieth for it which cannot be supposed when recourse ought to be had to the Keyes of the Church for obtaining it and is not And thereforâ— there can be no greater argument thereof in the practice of the Church then this that the orâ—inary use of this unction both in the Eastern and Western Church is after receiving the Euâ—hariâ—l which supposeth in the Church a legall presumption at least of the parâ—â—es being in the state of grace The words of venerable Bede upon Mark VI. 13. are by no means to be neglected Dicit Apostolus â—acobus Infirmatur quis in vobis Inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super ipsum ungentes eam â—leo in nomine dâ—mini Et si in peccatis sit dimittentur ei Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolâ—â— hunc Sanctae â—cclesiae morem esse traditum ut energumeni vel alii quilibet aegroti uâ—gantur oleo pontificali benedictione consecrato The Apostle James saith Is aâ—y man among you sick let him bring the Priests of the Church and â—et them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord. And if he be in sinnes they shall be forgiven him Whence it appeareth that this custome was delivered to the Holy Church by the Apostles that the vexed with evill Spirits and other sick persons be anointed with oyl consecrated by the blessing of the High Priest I believe no lesse By that which the Apostles did then it appeareth that thereupon S. James ordered and the Church used to anoint the sick in hope of bodily health but with prayers for the soul also and that by the ministers of the Church when the case required their presence that is when the ministers of the Keyes was requisite But when he saith That the vexed with unâ—leâ—n spirits as well as the sick were to be anointed with it he toucheth thar whiâ—h he declareth more at large uâ—on James V. 14. 15. Hoc Apostolos fecisse in Evangelio legimus nunc Ecclesiae consuetudo tenet ut infirmi oleo coâ—secrato ungantur a Presbyteris oratione comitante sanentur Nec solum Presbyteris sed ut Innocentuis Papa scribit etiam omnibus Christianis uti licet eodem oleo in sua aut suorum infirmitate ungendo Quod tamen oleum non nisi ab Episcopis licet confici Nam quod ait in nomine domini significat oleum consecratum in nomine domini Vel certe quia cum ungunt infirnium momen domini super eum invocare debent This was not onely read in the Gospel that the Apostle did but also the custome of the Church now holdeth that the sick be anointed with consecrated oyle by the Priests and cured by Prayer accompanying the same Nor may onely Priests but also all Christians as Pope Innocent writeth use the same oyle when they or theirs are sick by anointing Which oyl notwithstanding is not to be consecrated but by the Bishop For that which he sath in the name of the Lord signifieth that the oyl must be consecrated in the name of the Lord. Or he saith it forsooth because when they anoint the sick they are to call upon the Name of the Lord over him The words of Pope Innocent Epist I. Quod non est dubinum de fidelibus aegro tantibus accipi vel intelligi debere qui sancto oleo Chrismatis perungi possunt quo ab Episcopo confecto non solum sacerdotibus sed omibus uti Christianis licet in sua aut suorum necessitaâ—e inungendo Which words of S. James are without doubt to be taken and understood of believers that are sick who may be anointed with the holy oyle of anointing Which being consecrated by the Bishop not Priests onely but all Christians may use when they or theirs need it by anointing And by and by Nam poenitentibus istud infundi non potest quia genus est Sacramenti Nam quibus reliqua Sacramenta negantur quomodo unum genus putatur concedi For it cannot be poured upon Penitents because it is a kind of Sacrament For how should it be thought that one kind can be allowed them whom the rest of the Sacraments are refused Bede agâ—in Si ergo infirmi in peccatis sint haec Presbyteris Ecclesiae confessi fueriâ—â— ac perfecto corde ea relinquere atque emendare sategerint dimittentur eis Neque enim sine coâ—fessione emendationis peccà ta querunt dimitti Unde recte subiungitur Confitemini ergo alteurtium peccata vestra orate pro invicem ut salvemini In hac autem sententia illa debet esse discretio ut quotidiana leviaque peccata alterutrum coaequalibus confiteamur eorumque quotidianà credamus oratione salvari Porro gracioris leprae immunditiaem juxta legem sacerdoti paudamus aâ—que ad ejus arbitium qualiter quanto tempore jusserit pacificari curemus If the sick then be in sins and shall have confessed them to the Priests of the Church and indeavoured to leave and mend them with a perfect heart
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