Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their souls * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32 Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopal dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops SECT XXXVI Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coercion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coercion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him unless the Bishop that censured him be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Council only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops Si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of clergy-Clergy-causes to the Bishop calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Council with frivolous appeals and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemn him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop and the other of the Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a Priest or Deacon by his own Bishop if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exteras opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturb the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Judge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the Audientia Episcopalis The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those are the next words fulfil thy Deaconship And therefore he was no Bishop As well this as the other for if Deaconship do not exclude Episcopacy why shall his being an Evangelist exclude it Or why may not his being a Deacon exclude his being an Evangelist as well as his being an Evangelist exclude his being a Bishop Whether is higher a Bishoprick or the office of an Evangelist If a Bishops office be higher and therefore cannot consist with an Evangelist then a Bishop cannot be a Priest and a Priest cannot be a Deacon and an Evangelist can be neither for that also is thought to be higher than them both But if the office of an Evangelist be higher then as long as they are not disparate much less destructive of each other they may have leave to consist in subordination For as for the pretence that an Evangelist is an office of a moveable imployment and a Bishoprick of fixt residence that will be considered by and by 2. All the former discourse is upon supposition that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies the office of a Deacon and so it may as well as S. Paul's other phrase implies S. Timothy to be an Evangelist For if we mark it well it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do the work not the office of an Evangelist And what 's that We may see it in the verses immediately going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if this be the work of an Evangelist which S. Paul would have Timothy perform viz. to preach to be instant in season and out of season to reprove to rebuke to exhort there is no harm done a Bishop may nay he must do all this 3. Consider what an Evangelist is and thence take our estimate for the present 1. He that writes the story of the Gospel is an Evangelist so the Greek Scholiast calls him And in this sence indeed S. Timothy was not an Evangelist but yet if he had he might have been a Bishop because S. Mark was an Evangelist to be sure and perhaps as sure that he was a Bishop sure enough for they are both delivered to us by the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Church as we shall see hereafter so far as concerns our Question But then again an Apostle might be an Evangelist S. Matthew was S. John was and the Apostolical dignity is as much inconsistent with the office of an Evangelist as Episcopal preheminence for I have proved these two names Apostle and Bishop to signifie all one thing Secondly S. Ambrose gives another exposition of Evangelists Evangelistae Diaconi sunt sicut fuit Philippus S. Philip was one of the seven commonly called Deacons and he was also a Presbyter and yet an Evangelist and yet a Presbyter in its proportion is an office of as necessary residence as a Bishop or else why are Presbyters cri'd out against so bitterly in all cases for non-residence and yet nothing hinders but that S. Timothy as well as S. Philip might have been a Presbyter and an Evangelist together and then why not a Bishop too for why should a Deaconship or a Presbyterate consist with the office of an Evangelist more than a Bishoprick Thirdly Another acceptation of Evangelist is also in Eusebius Sed alii plurimi per idem tempus Apostolorum Discipuli superstites erant Nonnulli ex his ardentiores Divinae Philosophiae animas suas verbo Dei consecrabant ut si quibus fortè provinciis nomen fidei esset incognitum praedicarent primaque apud eos Evangelii fundamenta collocantes Evangelistarum fungebantur officio They that planted the Gospel first in any Country they were Evangelists S. Timothy might b◠such a one and yet be a Bishop afterwards And so were some of this sort of Evangelists For so Eusebius Primaque apud eos fundamenta Evangelii collocantes atque electis quibusque ex ipsis officium regendae Ecclesiae quam fundaverant committentes ipsi rursùm ad alias gentes properabant So that they first converted the Nation and then governed the Church first they were Evangelists and afterwards Bishops and so was Austin the Monk that converted England in the time of S. Gregory and Ethelbert he was first our Evangelist and afterwards Bishop of Dover Nay why may they not in this sence be both Evangelists and Bishops at the same time insomuch as many Bishops have first planted Christianity in divers Countries as S. Chrysostome in Scythia S. Trophimus S. Denis S. Mark and many more By the way only according to all these acceptations of the word Evangelist this office does not imply a perpetual motion Evangelists many of them did travel but they were never the more Evangelists for that but only their office was writing or preaching the Gospel and thence they had their name 4. The office of an Evangelist was but temporary and take it in either of the two sences of Eusebius or Oecumenius which are the only true and genuine was to expire when Christianity was planted every where and the office of Episcopacy if it was at all was to be succeeded in and therefore in no respect could these be inconsistent at least not always And how S. Paul should intend that Timothy should keep those rules he gave him to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ if the office for the execution of which he gave him the rules was to expire long before is not so easily imagined For if S. Paul did direct him in a temporary and expiring office then in no sence neither in person nor in succession could those rules of S. Paul be kept till Christ's coming to wit to judgment But if he instructed him in the perpetual office of Episcopacy then it is easie to understand that S. Paul gave that caution to Timothy to intimate that those his directions were not personal but for his successors in that charge to which he had ordained him viz. in the sacred order and office of Episcopacy 5. Lastly After all this stir there are some of the Fathers that will by no means admit S. Timothy to have been an Evangelist So S. Chrysostom so Theophylact so the Greek Scholiast Now though we have no need to make any use of it yet if it be true it makes all this discourse needless we were safe enough without it if it be false then it self we see is needless for the allegation of S. Timothies being an Evangelist is absolutely impertinent though it had been true But now I proceed SECT XV. S. Titus at Crete TITVS was also made a Bishop by the Apostles S. Paul also was his ordainer First Reliqui te Cretae There S. Paul fixt his seat for him at Crete Secondly His work was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set in order things that are wanting viz. to constitute rites and forms of publick Liturgy to erect a Consistory for cognizance of causes criminal to dedicate houses for prayer by publick
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self is almost 1100 years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law De consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not always go together and also several Orders had several manners of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they
been needful for the managing of a City-parish especially if a whole City was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochial But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the countrey while the Bishop was resident in the City either the Bishops parish extended it self from City to Countrey and then it is all one with a Diocess or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch describes their use and power Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias They were to govern the Churches delegated to their charge It seems they had many Churches under their provision and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars for so it follows in the Canon he must not ordain any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitur regio Without leave of the Bishop of the City to whom both himself and all the countrey is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a City wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one altar in every Church and one Bishop together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Jerusalem which as Josephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocess as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a City and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hinder'd but that there might in a City be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may not every Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it self and all the Countrey therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meer parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint episcopi was the constitution of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a business that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance Is ergo qui Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearly that a Chuch that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent this one Church was may easily be guessed by himself who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millain * And therefore when Valerius as it was then sometimes used in several Churches had ordained S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonical and yet he was not ordained to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Angelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harm in it to this cause they were ordained to succeed not in conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a note of Schism and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chair Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his Epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schism by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse debere And these very words the people also used in the contestation about Liberius and Felix For when the Emperour was willing that Liberius should return to his See on condition that Felix the Arrian might be Bishop there too they derided the suggestion crying out One God one Christ one Bishop So Theodoret reports But who lists to see more of this may be satisfied if plenty will do it in S. Chrysostom Theodoret S. Hierom Oecumenius Optatus S. Ambrose and if he please he may read a whole book of it written by S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae sive de singularitate Praelatorum 6. Suppose the ordinary Diocesses had been Parishes yet what were the Metropolitans and the Primates were they also Parish-Bishops Surely if Bishops were parochial then these were at least Diocesan by their own argument for to be sure they had many Bishops under them But there were none such in the Primitive Church yes most certainly The 35. Canon of the Apostles tells us so most plainly and at the worst they were a very primitive record Episcopus gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quà m ea sola quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub eâ sunt competunt The Bishops of every Nation must know who is their Primate and esteem him as their head and do nothing without his consent but those things that appertain to their own Diocess And from hence the Fathers of the Council of Antioch derived their sanction per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse Metropolitanum Episcopum sollicitudinem totius provinciae gerere c. The Bishops of every province must know that their Metropolitan-Bishop does take cure of all the province For this was an Apostolical Constitution saith S. Clement that in the conversion of Gentile Cities in place of the Archslamines Archbishops Primates or Patriarchs should be placed qui reliquorum Episcoporum judicia majora quoties necesse foret negotia in fide agitarent secundùm Dei voluntatem sicut constituerunt Sancti Apostoli definirent Alexandria was a Metropolitical See long before the Nicene Council as appears in the sixth Canon before cited Nay Dioscorus the Bishop of that Church was required to bring ten of the Metropolitans that he had under him to the Council of Ephesus by Theodosius and Valentinian Emperours so that it was a
circa gerenda ea quae administratio religiosa deposcit Be my substitutes in the administration of Church affairs He intreats them pro dilectione because they loved him he Commands them pro religione by their religion for it was a piece of their religion to obey him and in him was the government of his Church else how could he have put the Presbyters and Deacons in substitution * Add to this It was the custome of the Church that although the Bishop did only impose hands in the ordination of Clerks yet the Clergy did approve and examine the persons to be ordained and it being a thing of publick interest it was then not thought fit to be a personal action both in preparation and ministration too and for this S. Chrysostome was accused in Concilio nefario as the title of the edition of it expresses it that he made ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet when S. Cyprian saw occasion for it he did ordain without the consent of the Clergy of his Church for so he ordained Celerinus so he ordained Optatus and Saturnus when himself was from his Church and in great want of Clergy-men to assist in the ministration of the daily offices *** He did as much in jurisdiction too and censures for himself did excommunicate Felicissimus and Augendus and Repostus and Irene and Paula as appears in his 38 and 39 Epistles and tells Rogatianus that he might have done as much to the petulant Deacon that abused him by vertue of his Episcopal authority And the same power singly and solely he exercised in his acts of favour and absolution Vnus atque alius obnitente Plebe contradicente mea tamen facilitate suscepti sunt Indeed here is no contradiction of the Clergy expressed but yet the absolution said to be his own act against the people and without the Clergy For he alone was the Judge insomuch that he declared that it was the cause of Schism and heresie that the Bishop was not obeyed Nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur and that one high Priest in a Church and Judge instead of Christ is not admitted So that the Bishop must be one and that one must be Judge and to acknowledge more in S. Cyprians Lexicon is called schism and heresie Farther yet this Judicatory of the Bishop is independant and responsive to none but Christ. Actum suum disponit dirigit Vnusquisque Episcopus rationem propositi sui Domino redditurus and again habet in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque Praepositus rationem actûs sui Domino redditurus The Bishop is Lord of his own actions and may do what seems good in his own eyes and for his actions he is to account to Christ. This general account is sufficient to satisfie the allegations out of the 6th and 8th Epistles and indeed the whole Question But for the 18th Epistle there is something of peculiar answer For first it was a case of publick concernment and therefore he would so comply with the publick interest as to do it by publick council 2dly It was a necessity of times that made this case peculiar Necessitas temporum facit ut non temerè pacem demus they are the first words of the next epistle which is of the same matter for if the lapsi had been easily and without a publick and solemn trial reconcil'd it would have made Gentile Sacrifices frequent and Martyrdom but seldom 3dly The common-council which S. Cyprian here said he would expect was the council of the Confessors to whom for a peculiar honour it was indulged that they should be interested in the publick assoyling of such penitents who were overcome with those fears which the Confessors had overcome So that this is evidently an act of positive and temporary discipline and as it is no disadvantage to the power of the Bishop so to be sure no advantage to the Presbyter * But the clause of objection from the 19th epistle is yet unanswered and that runs something higher tamen ad consultum vestrum eos dimisi ne videar aliquid temerè praesumere It is called presumption to reconcile the penitents without the advice of those to whom he writ But from this we are fairly delivered by the title Cypriano Compresbyteris Carthagini consistentibus Caldonius salutem It was not the epistle of Cyprian to his Presbyters but of Caldonius one of the suffragan Bishops of Numidia to his Metropolitan and now what wonder if he call it presumption to do an act of so publick consequence without the advice of his Metropolitan He was bound to consult him by the Canons Apostolical and so he did and no harm done to the present Question of the Bishops sole and independent power and unmixt with the conjunct interest of the Presbytery who had nothing to do beyond ministery counsel and assistance 3. In all Churches where a Bishops seat was there were not always a Colledge of Presbyters but only in the greatest Churches for sometime in the lesser Cities there were but two Esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini sint per Ecclesias unus in civitate Episcopus so S. Ambrose sometimes there was but one in a Church Post-humianus in the third Council of Carthage put the case Deinde qui unum Presbyterum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri The Church of Hippo had but one Valerius was the Bishop and Austin was the Priest and after him Austin was the Bishop and Eradius the Priest Sometimes not one as in the case Aurelius put in the same Council now cited of a Church that hath never a Presbyter to be consecrated Bishop in the place of him that died and once at Hippo they had none even then when the people snatch'd S. Austin and carried him to Valerius to be ordain'd In these cases I hope it will not be denied but the Bishop was Judge alone I am sure he had but little company sometimes none at all 4. But suppose it had been always done that Presbyters were consulted in matters of great difficulty and possibility of Scandal for so S. Ambrose intimates Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum Concilio nihil gerebatur in Ecclesiâ understand in these Churches where Presbyters were fixt yet this might be necessary and was so indeed in some degree at first which in succession as it prov'd troublesome to the Presbyters so unnecessary and impertinent to the Bishops At first I say it might be necessary For they were times of persecutions and temptation and if both the Clergy and people too were not complied withal in such exigence of time and agonies of spirit it was the way to make them relapse to Gentilism for a discontented spirit will hide it self and take sanctuary in the reeds and mud of Nilus rather than not take complacence in an imaginary
us And first Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary even to the being and constitution of a Church That runs high but we must follow our leaders S. Ignatius is express in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcopo sacerdotibus Qui vero foris est hic is est qui sine Episcopo Sacerdote Diacono quicquam agit ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam infideli deterior est He that is within the Altar that is within the communion of the Church he is pure for he obeys the Bishop and the Priests But he that is without that is does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel Necesse itaque est quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis It is necessary that what ever ye doe ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse than an Infidel The same also he affirms again Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi qui vero ab illo declinant cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur hi cum illis excidentur All they that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them If then we will be Christs servants we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop It is the condition of Christianity We are not Christians else So is the intimation of S. Ignatius As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Hence is it that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued so that the Church hath its being or constitution by Bishops and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit miror c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God I wonder any man should question it c. And therefore as in all buildings the foundation being gone the fabrick falls so if ye take away Bishops the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer be called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata pastori suo Grex adhaerens The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyned Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt c. As a Bishop is in the Church so the Church is in the Bishop and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good if they communicate in conventicles and forsake their Bishop And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident and zealous for a Bishop that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution than to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholick faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council and having considered of the command of the Tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos inveniebant promotione It was full of bravery and Christian sprite The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God rather than man and to consecrate Bishops in all places hoping the King would be appeased or if not yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome They did so Fit repente communis assumptio and they all strived who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might go to heaven though persecuted under the conduct of a Bishop they knew without him the ordinary passage was obstructed Pius the first Bishop of Rome and Martyr speaking of them that calumniate and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous they add saith he evil to evil and grow worse non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit in templum Dei Not considering that the Church of God doth consist or is establisht in Bishops and grows up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity SECT XLVI For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this business to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an unmatchable power be not given to him tot efficicientur schismata quot Sacerdotes So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved and we know that unity and being are of equal extent and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop then where there is no Bishop no pretence to a Church and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick For unity which the Fathers press so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos
when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell he did it to teach us a duty Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop * To these I add If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthronization Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae praeparatae ut Thronus speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne ** The sum of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our duties and their work deserves it Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formosi pedes Evangelizantium the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous and then much more of the chief Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos ut animas vestras diligatis ut quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c. Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more than amicitia that 's amongst Peers but love to our Betters is Reverence Obedience and high Estimate And if we have the one the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence I end this with the saying of Saint Ignatius Et vos decâ—t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem illi impertiri Reverentiam It is the will of God the Father that we should give all Reverence Honour or veneration to our Bishops SECT XLIX And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest WELL However things are now it was otherwise in the old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions and imployments of greatest trust For it was great consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors and great Dictators of faith and conscience should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination a Divine wisdom and interests of Conscience and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick which must be indulged to a private personal necessity But we have not Saint Paul's example only but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church Who are they The Clergy I am sure now adayes But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges For by least esteemed he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity they would most certainly have done very strange justice especially in such causes which they understand not No but set them to judge who by their office are Servants and Ministers of all and those are the Clergy who as Saint Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Jesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Jesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam Yea but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus Saint Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was to be the man though till then in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of ingagements in Rebus Saeculi So the sixth Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himself worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is general No worldly cares Not domestick But how if they come on him by Divine imposition or accident That 's nothing if he does not assume them that is by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sin But if he seeks it for it self it is ambition In this sence also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it self but the illness of the intention and this indeed she expresly forbids in her Canons Pervenit ad Sanctam
Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti Propter Lucra Turpia conductores alienarum possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos Propter Avaritiam patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy-men were farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment for covetous designs and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councel complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotiis secularibus se immiscere No Bishop no Clergy-man no Monk must farm grounds nor ingage himself in secular business What in none No none Praeter pupillorum si forte leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum carum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will do right to the Question All secular affairs and bargains either for covetousness or with considerable disturbance of Church-Offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much less for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councel of Arles Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But not here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curiâ He may undertake the supra-vision of Widows and Orphans And although he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a Guardian of Pupils yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawful But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore Saint Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he had no leave of his Bishop so to do and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his Office did in Saint Cyprian's Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or Steward of a Church and dispence her Revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches aid * From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him All causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the Revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousness but any thing in obedience any thing I mean of the forenamed instances Nay the affairs of Church Revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolical and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to Saint Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widows be neglected after God do thou take care of them Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causà egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the relief of the Widows and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Justin Martyr's time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Jerusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a scandal then they chose seven men men full of the Holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the seventy Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so Saint Stephen and Saint Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the Word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the Word in some sence or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harm neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harm done by this temporary Office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a far greater burden and requires more than a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks do prohibit it only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the Offices are supplyed by any of the Order it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Commonwealth And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate Thus the Councel of Arles decreed Vt Presbyteri sicut hactenus factum est indiscretè per diversa non mittantur loca ne fortè propter eorum absentiam animarum pericula Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt negligantur officia So that here we see 1. That it had been usual to send Priests
the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else * But for the main Question Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus far Saint Ambrose * Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba President in the Nicene Council said it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affairs Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity To these add the Council of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire Aliter à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants but the Bishop unless the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must hear the cause but no Lay-Judges by any means * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict for so Justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already Sect. 36. and Sect. 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the Latine for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four for to pretend such slight aery imaginations against the constant known open Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church and History of all ages is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge Antiquity for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would fain have been it is known so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either Divine or Humane but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the Lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the nearest denomination The Objection is from Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine especially they therefore all Elders do not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are Governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Paul's sence not so much to do one as to do the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not Saint Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same Order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the Office and therefore the sence of the words is this That all Presbyters must be honoured but especially they that Prophesie doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Add to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
made the argument too hard for them And the whole seventh Chapter of S. John's Gospel is a perpetuall instance of the efficacy of such trifling prejudices and the vanity and weakness of popular understandings Some whole Ages have been abused by a Definition which being once received as most commonly they are upon slight grounds they are taken for certainties in any Science respectively and for Principles and upon their reputation men use to frame Conclusions which must be false or uncertain according as the Definitions are And he that hath observed any thing of the weaknesses of men and the successions of groundless Doctrines from Age to Age and how seldome Definitions which are put into Systems or that derive from the Fathers or are approved among School-men are examined by persons of the same interests will bear me witness how many and great inconveniences press hard upon the perswasions of men who are abused and yet never consider who hurt them Others and they very many are led by authority or examples of Princes and great personages Numquis credit ex Principibus Some by the reputation of one learned man are carried into any perswasion whatsoever And in the middle and latter Ages of the Church this was the more considerable because the infinite ignorance of the Clerks and the men of the Long robe gave them over to be led by those few Guides which were marked to them by an eminency much more then their Ordinary which also did the more amuse them because most commonly they were fit for nothing but to admire what they understood not Their learning then was some skill in the Master of the Sentences in Aquinas or Scotus whom they admired next to the most intelligent order of Angels hence came Opinions that made Sects and division of names Thomists Scotists Albertists Nominals Reals and I know not what monsters of Names and whole families of the same Opinion the whole institute of an Order being engaged to believe according to the Opinion of some leading man of the same Order as if such an Opinion were imposed upon them in virtute sanctae obedientiae But this inconvenience is greater when the principle of the mistake runs higher when the Opinion is derived from a Primitive man and a Saint for then it often happens that what at first was but a plain innocent seduction comes to be made sacred by the veneration which is consequent to the person for having lived long agone and then because the person is also since canonized the errour is almost made eternall and the cure desperate These and the like prejudices which are as various as the miseries of humanity or the variety of humane understandings are not absolute excuses unless to some persons but truly if they be to any they are exemptions to all from being pressed with too peremptory a sentence against them especially if we consider what leave is given to all men by the Church of Rome to follow any one probable Doctor in an Opinion which is contested against by many more And as for the Doctors of the other side they being destitute of any pretences to an infallible medium to determine Questions must of necessity allow the same liberty to the people to be as prudent as they can in the choice of a fallible Guide and when they have chosen if they do follow him into errour the matter is not so inexpiable for being deceived in using the best Guides we had which Guides because themselves were abused did also against their wills deceive me So that this prejudice may the easier abuse us because it is almost like a duty to follow the dictates of a probable Doctor or if it be overacted or accidentally pass into an inconvenience it is therefore to be excused because the Principle was not ill unless we judge by our event not by the antecedent probability Of such men as these it was said by Saint Austin Caeteram turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit And Gregory Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The common sort of people are safe in their not enquiring by their own industry and in the simplicity of their understanding relying upon the best Guides they can get 8. But this is of such a nature in which as we may inculpably be deceived so we may turn it into a vice or a design and then the consequent errours will alter the property and become Heresies There are some men that have mens persons in admiration because of advantage and some that have itching ears and heap up Teachers to themselves In these and the like cases the authority of a person and the prejudices of a great reputation is not the excuse but the fault and a Sin is so far from excusing an Errour that Errour becomes a Sin by reason of its relation to that Sin as to its parent and principle SECT XII Of the Innocency of Errour in Opinion in a pious person 1. AND therefore as there are so many innocent causes of Errour as there are weaknesses within and harmless and unavoidable prejudices from without so if ever errour be procured by a vice it hath no excuse but becomes such a crime of so much malignity as to have influence upon the effect and consequent and by communication makes it become criminal The Apostles noted two such causes Covetousness and Ambition the former in them of the Circumcision and the latter in Diotrephes and Simon Magus and there were some that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were of the Long robe too but they were the she-Disciples upon whose Consciences some false Apostles had influence by advantage of their wantonness and thus the three principles of all sin become also the principles of Heresie the lust of the flesh the lust of the eye and the pride of life And in pursuance of these arts the Devil hath not wanted fuell to set a-work Incendiaries in all Ages of the Church The Bishops were always honourable and most commonly had great Revenues and a Bishoprick would satisfie the two designs of Covetousness and Ambition and this hath been the golden apple very often contended for and very often the cause of great fires in the Church Thebulis quia rejectus ab Episcopatu Hierosolymitano turbare coepit Ecclesiam said Egesippus in Eusebius Tertullian turned Montanist in discontent for missing the Bishoprick of Carthage after Agrippinus and so did Montanus himself for the same discontent saith Nicephorus Novatus would have been Bishop of Rome Donatus of Carthage Arius of Alexandria Aërius of Sebastia but they all missed and therefore all of them vexed Christendom And this was so common a thing that oftentimes the threatning the Church with a Schism or a Heresie was a design to get a Bishoprick And Socrates reports of Asterius that he did frequent the Conventicles of the Arians Nam Episcopatum aliquem ambiebat And setting aside the infirmities of men and their innocent
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
help as doubting coldness weariness disrelish of heavenly things indifferency and these are enough to interpret the place quoted in the Objection without tying him to make words for us to no great religious purposes when God hath done that for us in other manner than what we dream of ** Sect. 27. SO that in effect praying in the Holy Ghost or with the spirit is nothing but prayer for such things and in such manner which God by his Spirit hath taught us in holy Scripture Holy Prayers spiritual songs so the Apostle calls one part of prayer viz. Eucharistical or thanksgiving that is Prayers or Songs which are spiritual in materiâ And if they be called spiritual for the Efficient cause too the Holy Ghost being the Author of them it comes all to one for therefore he is the cause and giver of them because he hath in his word revealed what things we are to pray for and there also hath taught us the manner Sect. 28. AND this I plainly prove from the words of S. Paul before quoted The Spirit helpeth our infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought In this we are infirm that we know not our own needs nor our own advantages when the Holy Ghost hath taught us what to ask and to ask that as we ought then he hath healed our infirmities and our ignorances in the matter and the manner then we know what to pray for as we ought then we have the grace of Prayer and the Spirit of supplication And therefore in the instance before mentioned concerning spiritual songs when the Apostle had twice enjoyn'd the use of them in order to Prayer and Preaching to instruction and to Eucharist and those to be done by the aid of Christ and Christ's spirit What in one place he calls being filled with the Spirit In the other he calls the dwelling of the word of Christ in us richly plainly intimating to us that when we are mighty in the scriptures full of the word of Christ then we are filled with the Spirit because the Spirit is the great Dictator of them to us and the Remembrancer and when by such helps of Scripture we sing Hymns to Gods honour and our mutual comfort then we sing and give thanks in the spirit And this is evident if you consult the places and compare them Sect. 29. AND that this is for this reason called a gift and grace or issue of the Spirit is so evident and notorious that the speaking of an ordinary revealed truth is called in Scripture a speaking by the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.8 No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost For though the world could not acknowledge Jesus for the Lord without a revelation yet now that we are taught this truth by Scripture and by the preaching of the Apostles to which they were enabled by the Holy Ghost we need no revelation or Enthusiasm to confess this truth which we are taught in our Creeds and Catechisms and this light sprang first from the immission of a ray from God's Spirit we must for ever acknowledge him the fountain of our light Though we cool our thirst at the mouth of the river yet we owe for our draughts to the springs and fountains from whence the waters first came though derived to us by the succession of a long current If the Holy Ghost supplies us with materials and fundamentals for our building it is then enough to denominate the whole edifice to be of him although the labour and the workmanship be ours upon another stock And this is it which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 2.13 Which things also we speak not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual The Holy Ghost teaches yet it is upon our co-operation our study and endeavour while we compare spiritual things with spiritual the Holy Ghost is said to teach us because these spirituals were of his suggestion and revelation Sect. 30. FOR it is a rule of the School and there is much reason in it Habitus infusi infunduntur per modum acquisitorum whatsoever is infused into us is in the same manner infused as other things are acquired that is step by step by humane means and co-operation and grace does not give us new faculties and create another nature but meliorates and improves our own And therefore what the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habits the Christians used to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gifts because we derive assistances from above to heighten the habits and facilitate the actions in order to a more noble and supernatural end And what S. Paul said in the Resurrection is also true in this Question That is not first which is spiritual but that which natural and then that which is spiritual The graces and gifts of the Spirit are postnate and are additions to art and nature God directs our counsels opens our understandings regulates our will orders our affections supplies us with objects and arguments and opportunities and revelations in scriptis and then most when we most imploy our own endeavours God loving to bless all the means and instruments of his service whether they be natural or acquisite Sect. 31. SO that now I demand Whether since the expiration of the age of miracles Gods spirit does not most assist us when we most endeavour and most use the means He that says No discourages all men from reading the Scriptures from industry from meditation from conference from humane arts and sciences and from whatsoever else God and good Laws provoke us to by proposition of rewards But if Yea as most certainly God will best crown the best endeavours then the spirit of prayer is greatest in him who supposing the like capacities and opportunities studies hardest reads most practises most religiously deliberates most prudently and then by how much want of means is worse than the use of means by so much ex tempore prayers are worse than deliberate and studied Excellent therefore is the Counsel of Saint Peter 1 Epist. Chap. 4. ver 11. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God not lightly then and inconsiderately If any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth great reason then to put to all his abilities and faculties to it and whether of the two does most likely do that he that takes pains and considers and discusses and so approves and practises a form or he that never considers what he says till he says it needs not much deliberation to pass a sentence Only methinks it is most unreasonable that we should be bound to prepare our selves with due requisites to hear what they shall speak in publick and that they should not prepare what to speak as if to speak were of easier or of less consideration than to hear what is spoken or if
expolit dicendi necessitas secundos impetus auget placendi cupido Adeò praemium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quoque quanquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis maximè tamen praesenti fructu laudis opinionisque ducatur It may so happen that the opinion of the people as it is apt to actuate the faculty so also may encourage the practice and spoil the devotion But these things are accidental to the nature of the thing and therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person yet I will not be too severe but preserve my self on the surer side of a charitable construction which truly I desire to keep not only to their persons whom I much reverence but also to their actions But yet I durst not do the same thing even for these last reasons though I had no other Sect. 115. IN the next place we must consider the next great objection that is with much clamor pretended viz. that in set Forms of Prayer we restrain and confine the blessed Spirit and in conceived Forms when every man is left to his liberty then the Spirit is free unlimited and unconstrained Sect. 116. I ANSWER Either their conceived forms I use their own words though indeed the expression is very inartificial are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore If they be premeditate and described then the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived Forms For as to this particular it is all one who describes and limits the Form whether the Church or a single man does it still the Spirit is in constraint and limit So that in this case they are not angry at set Forms of Prayer but that they do not make them And if it be replyed that if a single person composes a set Form he may alter it if he please and so his Spirit is at liberty I answer so may the Church if She see cause for it and unless there be cause the single person will not alter it unless he do things unreasonable and without cause So that it will be an unequal challenge and a peevish quarrel to allow of set Forms of Prayer made by private Persons and not of set Forms made by the publick spirit of the Church It is evident that the Spirit is limited in both alike Sect. 117. BUT if by conceived Forms in this Objection they mean ex tempore Prayers for so they would be thought most generally to practise it and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved To this I answer that the being ex tempore or premediate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit For there may be great liberty in set forms even when there is much variety and there may be great restraint in ex tempore Prayers even then when it shall be called unlawful to use set forms That the spirit is restrained or that it is free in either is accidental to them both for it may be either free or not free in both as it may happen Sect. 118. BUT the restraint is this that every one is not left to his liberty to pray how he list with premeditation or without it makes not much matter but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another But if it be a fault thus to restrain the Spirit I would fain know is not the Spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one mans composing Or shall it be unlawful or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set Forms especially of the Churches composition More plainly thus Sect. 119. SECONDLY Doth not the Minister confine and restrain the spirit of the Lords People when they are tied to his Form It would sound of more liberty to their spirits that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate and private spirit It is true it would breed confusions and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began and not for the avoiding one inconvenience run into a greater and to avoid the disorder of a popular noise restrain the blessed Spirit for even in this case as well as in the other where the Spirit of God is there must be liberty Sect. 120. THIRDLY If the spirit must be at liberty who shall assure us this liberty must be in Forms of Prayer And if so whether also it must be in publick Prayer and will it not suffice that it be in private and if in publick Prayers is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved that the publick Spirit is free That is the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and increase her Litanies By what argument shall any man make it so much as probable that the Holy Ghost is injured if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided and therefore by necessary consequence limited by the authority of the Churches publick Spirit Sect. 121. FOURTHLY Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining of the Spirit Does it not appoint every thing but the words And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for and a princely liberty they leave unto the Spirit to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia verborum For as for the matter it is all there described and appointed and to those determined sences the Spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choice Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously Is it not as much injury to the Spirit to restrain his matter as to appoint his words Which is the more considerable of the two Sence or Language Matter or Words I mean when they are taken singly and separately For so they may very well be for as if men prescribe the matter only the Spirit may cover it with several words and expressions so if the Spirit prescribe the words I may still abound in variety of sence and preserve the liberty of my meaning we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture So that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations we trust him to say what he pleases so it be to our sence to our purposes A goodly compensation surely Sect. 122. FIFTHLY Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles when he taught them to pray the Lords Prayer whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it was Pray this or Pray thus Pray these words or Pray after this manner Or though it had been less than either and been only a Directory for the matter still it is a thing which our brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a
we may venture to offer it to God Sect. 132. FOURTHLY There is a latitude of Theology much whereof is left to us so without precise and clear determination that without breach either of faith or charity men may differ in opinion and if they may not be permitted to abound in their own sence they will be apt to complain of tyranny over Consciences and that Men Lord it over their faith In prayer this thing is so different that it is imprudent and full of inconvenience to derive such things into our prayers which may with good profit be matter of Sermons Therefore here a liberty may well enough be granted when there it may better be denied Sect. 133. FIFTHLY But indeed If I may freely declare my opinion I think it were not amiss if the liberty of making Sermons were something more restrain'd than it is and that either such persons only were intrusted with the liberty for whom the Church her self may safely be responsive that is to men learned and pious and that the other part the Vulgus Cleri should instruct the People out of the fountains of the Church and the publick stock till by so long exercise and discipline in the Schools of the Prophets they may also be intrusted to minister of their own unto the people This I am sure was the Practice of the Primitive Church when preaching was as ably and religiously performed as now it is but in this I prescribe nothing But truly I think the reverend Divines of the Assembly are many of them of my mind in this particular and that they observe a liberty indulg'd to some Persons to preach which I think they had rather should hold their peace and yet think the Church better edified in their silence than their Sermons Sect. 134. SIXTHLY But yet methinks the Argument objected so far as the ex tempore Men make use of it if it were turned with the edge the other way would have more reason in it and instead of arguing Why should not the same liberty be allowed to their spirit in praying as in preaching it were better to substitute this If they can pray with the Spirit why do they not also preach with the Spirit And it may be there may be in reason or experience something more for preaching and making Orations by the excellency of a mans spirit and learning than for the other which in the greatest abilities it may be unfit to venture to God without publick approbation but for Sermons they may be fortunate and safe if made ex tempore Frequenter enim accidit ut successum extemporalem consequi cura non possit quem si calor ac spiritus tulit Deum tunc adfuisse cùm id evenisset veteres Oratores ut Cicero dicit aiebant Now let them make demonstration of their spirit by making excellent Sermons ex tempore that it may become an experiment of their other faculty that after they are tried and approved in this they may be considered for the other And if praying with the Spirit be praying ex tempore why shall not they preach ex tempore too or else confess they preach without the Spirit or that they have not the gift of preaching For to say that the gift of prayer is a gift ex tempore but the gift of Preaching is with study and deliberation is to become vain and impertinent Quis enim discrevit Who hath made them of a different Consideration I mean as to this particular as to their Efficient cause nor Reason nor Revelation nor God nor Man Sect. 135. TO summe up all If any man hath a mind to exercise his Gift of prayer let him set himself to work and compose Books of Devotion we have need of them in the Church of England so apparent need that some of the Church of Rome have made it an objection against us and this his Gift of Prayer will be to edification But otherwise I understand it is more fit for ostentation than any spiritual advantage For God hears us not the sooner for our ex tempore long or conceived Prayers possibly they may become a hinderance as in the cases before instanced And I am sure if the people be intelligent and can discern they are hindred in their Devotion for they dare not say Amen till they have considered and many such cases will occur in ex tempore or unlicenced Prayers that need much considering before we attest them But if the people be not intelligent they are apt to swallow all the inconveniences which may multiply in so great a licence and therefore it were well that the Governours of the Church who are to answer for their souls should judge for them before they say Amen which judgment cannot be without set Forms of Liturgy My sentence therefore is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us be as we are already few changes are for the better Sect. 136. FOR if it be pretended that in the Liturgy of the Church of England which was composed with much art and judgment by a Church that hath as much reason to be confident She hath the Spirit and Gift of Prayer as any single person hath and each learned man that was at its first composition can as much prove that he had the Spirit as the Objectors now adays and he that boasts most certainly hath the least If I say it be pretended that there are many errors and inconveniences both in the Order and in the matter of the Common-Prayer-Book made by such men with so much industry how much more and with how much greater reason may we all dread the inconveniences and disorders of ex tempore and conceived Prayers Where respectively there is neither conjunction of Heads nor Premeditation nor Industry nor Method nor Art nor any of those Things or at least not in the same Degree which were likely to have exempted the Common-prayer-book from errors and disorders If these things be in the green tree what will be done in the dry Sect. 137. BUT if it be said the ex tempore and conceived Prayers will be secured from error by the Directory because that chalks them out the matter I answer it is not sufficient because if when men study both the matter and the words too they may be and it is pretended are actually deceived much more may they when the matter is left much more at liberty and the words under no restraint at all And no man can avoid the pressure and the weight of this unless the Compilers of the Directory were infallible and that all their followers are so too of the certainty of which I am not yet fully satisfied Sect. 138. AND after this I would fain know what benefit and advantages the Church of England in her united capacity receives by this new device For the publick it is clear that whether the Ministers Pray before they Study or Study before they Pray there must needs be infinite deformity in the publick Worship and
provision at all is made in the Directorie and the very administration of the Sacraments left so loosely that if there be any thing essential in the Forms of Sacraments the Sacrament may become ineffectual for want of due Words and due Administration I say he that considers all these things and many more he may consider will find that particular men are not fit to be intrusted to offer in Publick with their private Spirit to God for the people in such Solemnities in matters of so great concernment where the Honour of God the benefit of the People the interest of Kingdoms the being of a Church the unity of Minds the conformity of Practice the truth of Perswasion and the salvation of Souls are so much concerned as they are in the publick Prayers of a whole National Church An unlearned man is not to be trusted and a Wise man dare not trust himself he that is ignorant cannot he that is knowing will not THE END OF THE SACRED ORDER AND OFFICES OF EPISCOPACY BY Divine Institution Apostolical Tradition and Catholick Practice TOGETHER WITH Their Titles of Honour Secular Imployment Manner of Election Delegation of their Power and other Appendant Questions Asserted against the Aërians and Acephali New and Old By JER TAYLOR D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First Published by His MAJESTIES Command ROM 13.1 There is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God CONCIL CHALCED 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent MAJESTY M DC LXXIII TO THE Truly Worthy and Most Accomplisht Sir CHRISTOPHER HATTON Knight of the Honourable Order of the BATH SIR I AM ingag'd in the defence of a Great Truth and I would willingly find a shroud to cover my self from danger and calumny and although the cause both is and ought to be defended by Kings yet my person must not go thither to Sanctuary unless it be to pay my devotion and I have now no other left for my defence I am robb'd of that which once did bless me and indeed still does but in another manner and I hope will do more but those distillations of celestial dews are conveyed in Channels not pervious to an eye of sense and now adays we seldom look with other be the object never so beauteous or alluring You may then think Sir I am forc'd upon You may that beg my pardon and excuse but I should do an injury to Your Nobleness if I should only make You a refuge for my need pardon this truth you are also of the fairest choice not only for Your love of Learning for although that be eminent in You yet it is not your eminence but for your duty to H. Church for Your loyalty to his sacred Majesty These did prompt me with the greatest confidence to hope for Your fair incouragement and assistance in my pleadings for Episcopacy in which cause Religion and Majesty the King and the Church are interested as parties of mutual concernment There was an odde observation made long ago and registred in the Law to make it authentick Laici sunt infensi Clericis Now the Clergie pray but fight not and therefore if not specially protected by the King contra Ecclesiam Malignantium they are made obnoxious to all the contumelies and injuries which an envious multitude will inflict upon them It was observ'd enough in King Edgars time Quamvis decreta Pontificum verba Sacerdotum inconvulsis ligaminibus velut fundamenta montiurn fixa sunt tamen plerumque tempestatibus turbinibus saecularium rerum Religio S. Matris Ecclesiae maculis reproborum dissipatur ac rumpitur Idcirco Decrevimus Nos c. There was a sad example of it in K. John's time For when he threw the Clergie from his Protection it is incredible what injuries what affronts what robberies yea what murders were committed upon the Bishops and Priests of H. Church whom neither the Sacredness of their persons nor the Laws of God nor the terrors of Conscience nor fears of Hell nor Church-censures nor the laws of Hospitality could protect from Scorn from blows from slaughter Now there being so near a tye as the necessity of their own preservation in the midst of so apparent danger it will tye the Bishops hearts and hands to the King faster than all the tyes of Lay-Allegiance all the Political tyes I mean all that are not precisely religious and obligations in the Court of Conscience 2. But the interest of the Bishops is conjunct with the prosperity of the King besides the interest of their own security by the obligation of secular advantages For they who have their livelihood from the King and are in expectance of their fortune from him are more likely to pay a tribute of exacter duty than others whose fortunes are not in such immediate dependency on his Majesty Aeneas Sylvius once gave a merry reason why Clerks advanced the Pope above a Council viz. because the Pope gave spiritual promotions but the Councils gave none It is but the common expectation of gratitude that a Patron Paramount shall be more assisted by his Beneficiaries in cases of necessity than by those who receive nothing from him but the common influences of Government 3. But the Bishops duty to the King derives it self from a higher fountain For it is one of the main excellencies in Christianity that it advances the State and well-being of Monarchies and bodies Politick Now then the Fathers of Religion are the Reverend Bishops whose peculiar office it is to promote the interests of Christianity are by the nature and essential requisites of their office bound to promote the Honour and Dignity of Kings whom Christianity would have so much honour'd as to establish the just subordination of people to their Prince upon better principles than ever no less than their precise duty to God and the hopes of a blissful immortality Here then is utile honestum and necessarium to tye Bishops in duty to Kings and a threefold Cord is not easily broken In pursuance of these obligations Episcopacy pays three returns of tribute to Monarchy 1. The first is the Duty of their people For they being by God himself set over souls judges of the most secret recesses of our Consciences and the venerable Priests under them have more power to keep men in their dutious subordination to the Prince than there is in any secular power by how much more forcible the impressions of the Conscience are than all the external violence in the world And this power they have fairly put into act for there was never any Protestant Bishop yet in Rebellion unless he turned recreant to his Order and it is the honour of the Church of England that all her Children and obedient people are full of indignation against Rebels be they of any interest or party whatsoever For here and for it we thank God and good Princes Episcopacy hath been preserved
wanting or amiss to silence vain prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordain elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithful for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already proved and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unless they could be their own superiours SECT XXI Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters BUT a Council or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they ruled without him This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom which I will set down here that we may leave the Sun without a cloud S. Jerome's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himself most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quâ—d facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordain a Bishop does which is a clear difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non faciat not non facit that a Priest may not must not do that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary and by actual indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and original right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had been quickly answered if the Question had only been de facto for the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters and this was by custom and in fact at least S. Hierome says it and the Bishop took so much power to himself that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complained of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference That then if Saint Hierome says true being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate * Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needs a proof and this he undertook Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects An identity at least of Names for else it had been wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a business next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certain if he stand to his own principles This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction I know not certainly which he means for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of Jurisdiction Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he means the first viz. that of Names it is well enough there is no harm done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so far as may be guessed by his words a parity and
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
and yet a Godly Bishop and Saint Austin his Presbyter preached for him The same case might occur in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperial Cities and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Jerusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophesie they were particular gifts given severally to several men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some prophesied some interpreted and therefore it is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolical was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new Office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the New-Testament for a Lay-man if a Church-officer be intended If it be said it is used so here that is the Question and must not be brought to prove it self 4. The Presbyter that is here spoken of must be maintained by Ecclesiastical Revenue for so Saint Paul expounds honour in the next verse Presbyters that rule well must be honoured c. For it is written thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corn But now the Patrons of this new devise are not so greedy of their Lay-Bishops as to be at charges with them they will rather let them stand alone on their own rotten legs and so perish than fix him upon this place with their hands in their purses But it had been most fitting for them to have kept him being he is of their own begetting 5. This place speaks not of divers persons but divers parts of the Pastoral office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To rule and to labour in the Word Just as if the expression had been in materiâ politicâ All good Councellors of State are worthy of double honour especially them that disregarding their own private aim at the publick good This implies not two sorts of Counsellors but two parts of a Counsellors worth and quality Judges that do righteousness are worthy of double honour especially if they right the cause of Orphans and Widows and yet there are no righteous Judges that refuse to do both 6. All Ministers of H. Church did not preach at least not frequently The seven that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over the Widows were Presbyters but yet they were forced to leave the constant ministration of the Word to attend that imployment as I shewed formerly and thus it was in descent too for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Socrates A Presbyter does not Preach in Alexandria the Bishop only did it And then the allegation is easily understood For labouring in the word does not signifie only making Homilies or Exhortations to the people but whether it be by word or writing or travelling from place to place still the greater the sedulity of the person is and difficulty of the labour the greater increment of honour is to be given him So that here is no Lay-Elders for all the Presbyters S. Paul speaks of are to be honoured but especially those who take extraordinary pains in propagating the Gospel For though all preach suppose that yet all do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take such great pains in it as is intimated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to take bodily labour and travel usque ad lassitudinem so Budaeus renders it And so it is likely S. Paul here means Honour the good Presbyters but especially them that travel for disseminating the Gospel And the word is often so used in Scripture S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have travelled in the word more than they all Not that S. Paul preached more than all the Apostles for most certainly they made it their business as well as he But he travelled further and more than they all for the spreading it And thus it is said of the good Women that travelled with the Apostles for supply of the necessities of their diet and houshold offices they laboured much in the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for them too So it is said of Persis of Mary of Tryphaena of Tryphosa And since those Women were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that travelled with the Apostolical men and Evangelists the men also travelled too and preached and therefore were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is travellers in the word We ought therefore to receive such saith S. John intimating a particular reception of them as being towards us of a peculiar merit So that the sence of S. Paul may be this also All the Rulers of the Church that is all Bishops Apostles and Apostolick men are to be honoured but especially them who besides the former ruling are also travellers in the word or Evangelists 7. We are furnished with answer enough to infatuate this pretence for Lay-Elders from the common draught of the new discipline For they have some that Preach only and some that Rule and Preach too and yet neither of them the Lay-Elder viz. their Pastors and Doctors 8. Since it is pretended by themselves in the Question of Episcopacy that Presbyter and Episcopus is all one and this very thing confidently obtruded in defiance of Episcopacy why may not Presbyteri in this place signifie Bishops And then either this must be Lay-Bishops as well as Lay-Presbyters or else this place is to none of their purposes 9. If both these Offices of Ruling and Preaching may be conjunct in one person then there is no necessity of distinguishing the Officers by the several imployments since one man may do both But if these Offices cannot be conjunct then no Bishops must preach nor no Preachers be of the Consistory take which government you list for if they be then the Officer being united in one person the inference of the dististinct Officer the Lay-Elder is impertinent For the meaning of Saint Paul would be nothing but this All Church-Rulers must be honoured especially for their preaching For if the Offices may be united in one person as it is evident they may then this may be comprehended within the other and only be a vital part and of peculiar excellency And indeed so it is according to the Exposition of Saint Chrysostom and Primasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rule well that spare nothing for the care of the Flock So that this is the general charge and preaching is the particular For the work in general they are to receive double honour but this of preaching as then preaching was had a particular excellency and a plastick power to form men into Christianity especially it being then attested with miracles But the new Office of a Lay-Elder I confess I cannot comprehend in any reasonable proportion his person his quality his office his authority his subordination his commission hath made so many divisions and
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
expounding the Sacrament Nothing needs to be plainer By the way let me observe this that the words cited by Tertullian out of Jeremy are expounded and recited too but by allusion For there are no such words in the Hebrew Text which is thus to be rendred Corrumpanus veneno cibum ejus and so cannot be referred to the Sacrament unless you will suppose that he fore-signified the poysoning the Emperour by a consecrated wafer But as to the figure this is often said by him for in the first book against Marcion he hath these words again nec reprobavit panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat etiam in Sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus creatoris He refused not bread by which he represents his own body wanting or using in the Sacraments the meanest things of the Creator For it is not to be imagined that Tertullian should attempt to perswade Marcion that the bread was really and properly Christs body but that he really delivered his body on the Cross that both in the old Testament and here himself gave a figure of it in bread and wine for that was it which the Marcionites denied saying on the cross no real humanity did suffer and he confutes them by saying these are figures and therefore denote a truth 8. However these men are resolved that this new answer shall please them and serve their turn yet some of their fellows great Clerks as themselves did shrink under the pressure of it as not being able to be pleased with so laboured and improbable an answer For Harding against Juel hath these words speaking of this place which interpretation is not according to the true sence of Christs words although his meaning swerve not from the truth And B. Rhenanus the author of the admonition to the Reader De quibusdam Tertulliani dogmat◠seems to confess this to be Tertullians error Error putantium corpus Christi in Eucharistiâ tantùm esse sub figurâ jam olim condemnatus The error of them that think the body of Christ is in the Eucharist only in a figure is now long since condemned But Garetius Bellarmine Justinian Coton Fevardentius Valentia and Vasquez in the recitation of this passage of Tertullian very fairly leave out the words that pinch them and which clears the article and bring the former words for themselves without the interpretation of id est figura corporis mei I may therefore without scruple reckon Tertullian on our side against whose plain words no real exception can lye himself expounding his own meaning in the pursuance of the figurative sence of this mystery 20. Concerning Origen I have already given an account in the ninth Paragraph and other places casually and made it appear that he is a direct opposite to the doctrine of Transubstantiation And the same also of Justin Martyr Paragraph the fifth number 9. Where also I have enumerated divers others who speak upon parts of this question on which the whole depends whither I refer the Reader Only concerning Justin Martyr I shall recite these words of his against Tryphon Figura fuit panis Eucharistiae quem in recordationem passionis facere praecepit The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion 21. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The blood of Christ is twofold the one is carnal by which we are redeemed from death the other spiritual viz. by which we are anointed And this is to drink the blood of Jesus to be partakers of the incorruption of our Lord. But the power of the word is the Spirit as blood is of the flesh Therefore in a moderated proposition and convenience wine is mingled with water as the Spirit with a man And he receives in the Feast viz. Eucharistical tempered wine unto faith But the Spirit leadeth to incorruption but the mixture of both viz. of drink and the word is called the Eucharist which is praised and is a good gift or grace of which they who are partakers by faith are sanctified in body and soul. Here plainly he calls that which is in the Eucharist Spiritual blood and without repeating the whole discourse is easie and clear And that you may be certain of S. Clement his meaning he disputes in the same chapter against the Encratites who thought it not lawful to drink wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For be ye sure he also did drink wine for he also was a man and he blessed wine when he said Take drink 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my blood the blood of the vine for that word that was shed for many for the remission of sins it signifies allegorically a holy stream of gladness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the thing which had been blessed was wine he shewed again saying to his disciples I will not drink of the fruit of this vine till I drink it new with you in my fathers kingdom Now S. Clement proving by Christs sumption of the Eucharist that he did drink wine must mean the Sacramental Symbol to be truly wine and Christs blood allegorically that holy stream of gladness or else he had not concluded by that argument against the Encratites Upon which account these words are much to be valued because by our doctrine in this article he only could confute the Encratites as by the same doctrine explicated as we explicate it Tertullian confuted the Marcionites and Theodoret and Gelasius confuted the Nestorians and Eutychians if the doctrine of Transubstantiation had been true these four heresies had by them as to their particular arguments relating to this matter been unconfuted 22. S. Cyprian in his Tractate de unctione which Canisius Harding Bellarmine and Lindan cite hath these words Dedit itaque Dominus noster c. Therefore our Lord in his table in which he did partake his last banquet with his disciples with his own hands gave bread and wine but on the cross he gave to the souldiers his body to be wounded that in the Apostles the sincere truth and the true sincerity being more secretly imprinted he might expound to the Gentiles how wine and bread should be his flesh and blood and by what reasons causes might agree with effects and diverse names and kinds viz. bread and wine might be reduced to one essence and the signifying and the signified might be reckoned by the same words and in his third Epistle he hath these words Vinum quo Christi sanguis ostenditur wine by which Christs blood is showen or declared Here I might cry out as Bellarmine upon a much slighter ground Quid clariùs dici potuit But I forbear being content to enjoy the real benefits of these words without a triumph But I will use it thus far that it shall outweigh the words cited out of the tract de coenâ Domini by Bellarmine by the Rhemists by the Roman Catechism by Perron
is pretended that some of the Fathers taught the adoration of the Eucharist we may also infer the adoration of all the other instances But that which proves too much proves nothing at all These are the grounds by which I am my self established and by which I perswade or confirm others in this Article I end with the words of the Fathers in the Council of CP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ commanded the substance of bread to be offered not the shape of a man lest Idolatry should be introduced Gloria Deo in excelsis In terris pax hominibus bonae voluntatis THE END A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY THE FIRST PART By JER TAYLOR Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor The Fifth Edition Revised and Corrected MOLINA S. IGNATIVS LOYOLA SOCIETATIS IESV FVNDATOR VASQUEZ Optabilior est Fur qúm Mendax assiduus vtriqueveró Perditionis haereditatem consequentur Eccles 20 vers 25 LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent MAJESTY MDCLXXIII THE PREFACE TO THE READER WHEN a Roman Gentleman had to please himself written a book in Greek and presented it to Cato he desir'd him to pardon the faults of his Expressions since he wrote in Greek which was a Tongue in which he was not perfect Master Cato told him he had better then to have let it alone and written in Latin by how much it is better not to commit a Fault than to make Apologies For if the thing be good it needs not to be excus'd if it be not good a crude Apologie will do nothing but confess the fault but never make amends I therefore make this Address to all who will concern themselves in reading this book not to ask their pardon for my fault in doing of it I know of none for if I had known them I would have mended them before the Publication and yet though I know not any I do not question but much fault will be found by too many I wish I have given them no cause for their so doing But I do not only mean it in the particular Periods where every man that is not a Son of the Church of England or Ireland will at least do as Apollonius did to the Apparition that affrighted his company on the mountain Caucasus he will revile and persecute me with evil words but I mean it in the whole Design and men will reasonably or capriciously ask Why any more Controversies Why this over again Why against the Papists against whom so very many are already exasperated that they cry out fiercely of Persecution And why can they not be suffered to enjoy their share of peace which hath returned in the hands of His Sacred Majesty at his blessed Restauration For as much of this as concerns my self I make no excuse but give my reasons and hope to justifie this procedure with that modesty which David us'd to his angry brother saying What have I now done is there not a cause The cause is this The Reverend Fathers my Lords the Bishops of Ireland in their circumspection and watchfulness over their Flocks having espied grievous Wolves to have entered in some with Sheeps-cloathing and some without some secret enemies and some open at first endeavour'd to give check to those enemies which had put fire into the bed-straw and though God hath very much prosper'd their labours yet they have work enough to do and will have till God shall call them home to the land of peace and unity But it was soon remembred that when King James of blessed memory had discerned the spirits of the English Nonconformists and found them peevish and factious unreasonable and imperious not only unable to govern but as inconsistent with the Government as greedy to snatch at it for themselves resolved to take off their disguise and put a difference between Conscience and Faction and to bring them to the measures and rules of Laws and to this the Council and all wise men were consenting because by the King 's great wisdom and the conduct of the whole Conference and Inquiry men saw there was reason on the Kings side and necessity on all sides But the Gun-powder Treason breaking out a new Zeal was enkindled against the Papists and it shin'd so greatly that the Nonconformists escap'd by the light of it and quickly grew warm by the heat of that flame to which they added no small increase by their Declamations and other acts of Insinuation insomuch that they being neglected multipli'd until they got power enough to do all those mischiefs which we have seen and felt This being remembred and spoken of it was soon observ'd that the Tables only were now turn'd and that now the publick zeal and watchfulness against those men and those perswasions which so lately have afflicted us might give to the Emissaries of the Church of Rome leisure and opportunity to grow into numbers and strength to debauch many Souls and to unhinge the safety and peace of the Kingdom In Ireland we saw too much of it done and found the mischief growing too fast and the most intolerable inconveniencies but too justly apprehended as near and imminent We had reason at least to cry Fire when it flamed through our very Roofs and to interpose with all care and diligence when Religion and the eternal Interest of Souls was at stake as knowing we should be greatly unfit to appear and account to the great Bishop and Shepherd of Souls if we had suffer'd the enemies to sow Tares in our fields we standing and looking on It was therefore consider'd how we might best serve God and rescue our Charges from their danger and it was concluded presently to run to arms I mean to the weapons of our warfare to the armour of the Spirit to the works of our calling and to tell the people of their peril to warn them of the enemy and to lead them in the ways of truth and peace and holiness that if they would be admonished they might be safe if they would not they should be without excuse because they could not say but the Prophets have been amongst them But then it was next inquired Who should minister in this affair and put in order all those things which they had to give in charge It was easie to chuse many but hard to chuse one there were many fit to succeed in the vacant Apostleship and though Barsabas the Just was by all the Church nam'd as a fit and worthy man yet the lot fell upon Matthias and that was my case it fell to me to be their Amanuensis when persons most worthy were more readily excus'd and in this my Lords the Bishops had reason that according to S. Pauls rule If there be judgments or controversies amongst us they should be imploy'd who are least esteem'd in the Church and upon this account I had nothing left me but Obedience though I confess that I found regret in
the nature of the imployment for I love not to be as S. Paul calls it one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disputers of this world For I suppose skill in Controversies as they are now us'd to be the worst part of learning and time is the worst spent in them and men the least benefited by them that is when the Questions are curious and impertinent intricate and unexplicable not to make men better but to make a Sect. But when the Propositions disputed are of the foundation of Faith or lead to good life or naturally do good to single persons or publick Societies then they are part of the depositum of Christianity of the Analogy of faith and for this we are by the Apostle commanded to contend earnestly and therefore Controversies may become necessary but because they are not often so but oftentimes useless and always troublesome and as an ill diet makes an ill habit of body so does the frequent use of controversies baffle the understanding and makes it crafty to deceive others it self remaining instructed in nothing but useless notions and words of contingent signification and distinctions without difference which minister to pride and contention and teach men to be pertinacious troublesome and uncharitable therefore I love them not But because by the Apostolical Rule I am tyed to do all things without murmurings as well as without disputings I consider'd it over again and found my self reliev'd by the subject matter and the grand consequent of the present Questions For in the present affair the case is not so as in the others here the Questions are such that the Church of Rome declares them to reach a◠far as eternity and damn all that are not of their opinions and the Protestants have much more reason to fear concerning the Papists such who are not excus'd by ignorance that their condition is very sad and deplorable and that it is charity to snatch them as a brand from the fire and indeed the Church of Rome maintains Propositions which if the Ancient Doctors of the Church may be believ'd are apt to separate from God I instance in their superaddition of Articles and Propositions derived only from a pretended tradition and not contain'd in Scripture Now the doing of this is a great sin and a great danger Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus detrahentibus destinatum said Tertullian I adore the fulness of Scripture and if it be not written let Hermogenus fear the woe that is destin'd to them that detract from or add to it S. Basil says Without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride to introduce any thing that is not written in the Scriptures our blessed Saviour having said My sheep hear my voice and the voice of strangers they will not hear and to detract from Scriptures or add any thing to the Faith that is not there is most vehemently forbidden by the Apostle saying If it be but a mans Testament nemo superordinat no man adds to it And says also This was the Will of the Testator And Theophilus Alexandrinus says plainly It is the part of a Devillish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the holy Scriptures and therefore S. Athanasius affirms that the Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vaecordia an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty and a necessary work of charity and the proper office of our Ministery to perswade our charges from the immodesty of an evil heart from having a Devillish spirit from doing that which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle from infidelity and pride and lastly from that eternal Woe which is denounc'd against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contain'd in the Scriptures and say Dominus dixit The Lord hath said it and he hath not said it If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish doctrine of Tradition we should have been thought uncharitable but because the holy Fathers do so we ought to be charitable and snatch our Charges from the ambient flame And thus it is in the question of Images Dubium non est quin Religio nulla sit ubicunque simulacrum est said Lactantius Without all peradventure where ever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion and that we ought rather to die than pollute our Faith with such impieties said Origen It is against the Law of Nature it being expresly forbidden by the second Commandment as Irenaeus affirms Tertullian Cyprian and S. Augustine and therefore is it not great reason we should contend for that Faith which forbids all worship of Images and oppose the superstition of such Guides who do teach their people to give them veneration to prevaricate the Moral Law and the very Law of Nature and do that which whosoever does has no Religion We know Idolatry is a damnable sin and we also know that the Roman Church with all the artifices she could use never can justifie her self or acquit the common practices from Idolatry and yet if it were but suspicious that it is Idolatry it were enough to awaken us for God is a jealous God and will not endure any such causes of suspicion and motives of jealousie I instance but once more The Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds and S. Ambrose says that he who receives the Mystery other ways than Christ appointed that is but in one kind when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord and he cannot have Devotion Now this thing we ought not to suffer that our people by so doing should remain unworthy of the Lord and for ever be indevout or cozen'd with a false shew of devotion or fall by following evil Guides into the sentence of Excommunication These matters are not trifling and when we see these errors frequently taught and own'd as the only true Religion and yet are such evils which the Fathers say are the way of damnation we have reason to hope that all wise and good men lovers of souls will confess that we are within the circles of our duty when we teach our people to decline the crooked ways and to walk in the ways of Scripture and Christianity But we have observed amongst the generality of the Irish such a declension of Christianity so great credulity to believe every superstitious story such confidence in vanity such groundless pertinacy such vicious lives so little sense of true Religion and the fear of God so much care to obey the Priests and so little to obey God such intolerable ignorance such fond Oaths and manners of swearing thinking
themselves more oblig'd by swearing on the Mass-book than the four Gospels and S. Patricks Mass-book more than any new one swearing by their Fathers soul by their Gossips hand by other things which are the product of those many Tales are told them their not knowing upon what account they refuse to come to Church but only that now they are old and never did or their country-men do not or their Fathers or Grandfathers never did or that their Ancestors were Priests and they will not alter from their Religion and after all can give no account of their Religion what it is only they believe as their Priest bids them and go to Mass which they understand not and reckon their Beads to tell the number and the tale of their prayers and abstain from Eggs and flesh in Lent and visit S. Patricks Well and leave Pins and Ribbons Yarn or Thread in their holy Wells and pray to God S. Mary and S. Patrick S. Columbanus and S. Bridget and desire to be buried with S. Francis's Cord about them and to fast on Saturdays in honour of our Lady These and so many other things of like nature we see daily that we being conscious of the infinite distance which these things have from the spirit of Christianity know that no charity can be greater than to perswade the people to come to our Churches where they shall be taught all the ways of godly wisdom of peace and safety to their souls whereas now there are many of them that know not how to say their prayers but mutter like Pies and Parrots words which they are taught but they do not pretend to understand But I shall give one particular instance of their miserable superstition and blindness I was lately within a few months very much troubled with Petitions and earnest Requests for the restoring a Bell which a Person of Quality had in his hands in the time of and ever since the late Rebellion I could not guess at the reasons of their so great and violent importunity but told the Petitioners If they could prove that Bell to be theirs the Gentleman was willing to pay the full value of it though he had no obligation to do so that I know of but charity but this was so far from satisfying them that still the importunity increased which made me diligently to inquire into the secret of it The first cause I found was that a dying person in the Parish desired to have it rung before him to Church and pretended he could not die in peace if it were deni'd him and that the keeping of that Bell did anciently belong to that Family from Father to Son but because this seem'd nothing but a fond and an unreasonable superstition I enquired further and at last found that they believ'd this Bell came from Heaven and that it used to be carried from place to place and to end Controversies by Oath which the worst men durst not violate if they swore upon that Bell and the best men amongst them durst not but believe him that if this Bell was rung before the Corps to the Grave it would help him out of Purgatory and that therefore when any one died the friends of the deceased did whilest the Bell was in their possession hire it for the behoof of their dead and that by this means that Family was in part maintain'd I was troubled to see under what spirit of delusion those poor souls do lie how infinitely their credulity is abused how certainly they believe in trifles and perfectly rely on vanity and how little they regard the truths of God and how not at all they drink of the waters of Salvation For the numerous companies of Priests and Friars amongst them take care they shall know nothing of Reliligion but what they design for them they use all means to keep them to the use of the Irish Tongue lest if they learn English they might be supplied with persons fitter to instruct them the people are taught to make that also their excuse for not coming to our Churches to hear our advices or converse with us in religious intercourses because they understand us not and they will not understand us neither will they learn that they may understand and live And this and many other evils are made greater and more irremediable by the affrightment which their Priests put upon them by the issues of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by which they now exercising it too publickly they give them Laws not only for Religion but even for Temporal things and turn their Proselytes from the Mass if they become Farmers of the Tithes from the Minister or Proprietary without their leave I speak that which I know to be true by their own confession and unconstrain'd and uninvited Narratives so that as it is certain that the Roman Religion as it stands in distinction and separation from us is a body of strange Propositions having but little relish of true primitive and pure Christianity as will be made manifest if the importunity of our Adversaries extort it so it is here amongst us a Faction and a State-party and design to recover their old Laws and barbarous manner of living a device to enable them to dwell alone and to be Populus unius labii a people of one language and unmingled with others And if this be Religion it is such a one as ought to be reproved by all the severities of Reason and Religion lest the people perish and their souls be cheaply given away to them that make merchandize of souls who were the purchase and price of Christs blood Having given this sad account why it was necessary that my Lords the Bishops should take care to do what they have done in this affair and why I did consent to be engaged in this Controversie otherwise than I love to be and since it is not a love of trouble and contention but charity to the souls of the poor deluded Irish there is nothing remaining but that we humbly desire of God to accept and to bless this well-meant Labour of Love and that by some admirable ways of his Providence he will be pleas'd to convey to them the notices of their danger and their sin and to de-obstruct the passages of necessary truth to them for we know the arts of their Guides and that it will be very hard that the notice of these things shall ever be suffer'd to arrive to the common people but that which hinders will hinder until it be taken away however we believe and hope in God for remedy For although Edom would not let his brother Israel pass into his Country and the Philistims would stop the Patriarchs Wells and the wicked Shepherds of Midian would drive their neighbours flocks from the watering-troughs and the Emissaries of Rome use all arts to keep the people from the use of Scriptures the Wells of Salvation and from entertaining the notices of such things which from the Scriptures we teach yet as God
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
jure humano and yet they shall be bound jure Divino to believe it to be just and specially since the causes of so scandalous an alteration are not set down in the decree of any Council and those which are set down by private Doctors besides that they are no record of the Church they are ridiculous weak and contemptible But as Granatensis said in the Council of Trent this affair can neither be regulated by Scripture nor traditions for surely it is against both but by wisdom wherein because it is necessary to proceed to circumspection I suppose the Church of Rome will always be considering whether she should give the chalice or no and because she will not acknowledge any reason sufficient to give it she will be content to keep it away without reason And which is worse the Church of Rome excommunicates those Priests that communicate the people in both kinds but the Primitive Church excommunicates them that receive but in one kind It is too much that any part of the Church should so much as in a single instance administer the Holy Sacrament otherwise than it is in the institution of Christ there being no other warrant for doing the thing at all but Christs institution and therefore no other way of learning how to do it but by the same institution by which all of it is done And if there can come a case of necessity as if there be no wine or if a man cannot endure wine it is then a disputable matter whether it ought or not to be omitted for if the necessity be of Gods making he is suppos'd to dispence with the impossibility But if a man alters what God appointed he makes to himself a new institution for which in this case there can be no necessity nor yet excuse But suppose either one or other yet so long as it is or is thought a case of necessity the thing may be hopefully excus'd if not actually justified and because it can happen but seldom the matter is not great let the institution be observed always where it can But then in all cases of possibility let all prepared Christians be invited to receive the body and blood of Christ according to his institution or if that be too much at least let all them that desire it be permitted to receive it in Christs way But that men are not suffered to do so that they are driven from it that they are called heretick for saying it is their duty to receive it as Christ gave it and appointed it that they should be excommunicated for desiring to communicate in Christs blood by the symbol of his blood according to the order of him that gave his blood this is such a strange piece of Christianity that it is not easie to imagine what Antichrist can do more against it unless he take it all away I only desire those persons who are here concerned to weigh well the words of Christ and the consequents of them He that breaketh one of the least of my Commandments and shall teach men so and what if he compel men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of God To the Canon last mentioned it is answered that the Canon speaks not of receiving the sacrament by the communicants but of the consummating the sacrifice by the Priest To this I reply that it is true that the Canon was particularly directed to the Priests by the title which themselves put to it but the Canon medles not with the consecrating or not consecrating in one kind but of receiving for that is the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without the blood and in the Canon it self Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant By which it plainly appears that the consecration was intire for it was calix sacrati cruoris the consecrated chalice from which out of a fond superstition some Priests did abstain the Canon therefore relates to the sumption or receiving not the sacrificing as these men love to call it or consecration and the sanction it self speaks indeed of the reception of the Sacrament but not a word of it as it is in any sence a sacrifice aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur So that the distinction of sacrament and sacrifice in this Question will be of no use to the Church of Rome For if Pope Gelasius for it was his Canon knew nothing of this distinction it is vainly applied to the expounding of his words but if he did know of it then he hath taken that part which is against the Church of Rome for of this mystery as it is a sacrament Gelasius speaks which therefore must relate to the people as well as to the Priest And this Canon is to this purpose quoted by Cassander And 2. no man is able to shew that ever Christ appointed one way of receiving to the Priest and another to the people The law was all one the example the same the Rule is simple and Uniform and no appearance of difference in the Scripture or in the Primitive Church so that though the Canon mentions only the Priest yet it must by the same reason mean all there being at that time do difference known 3. It is call'd sacriledge to divide one and the same mystery meaning that to receive one without the other is to divide the body from the blood for the dream of concomitancy was not then found out and therefore the title of the Canon is thus express'd Corpus Christi sine ejus sanguine sacerdos non debet accipere and that the so doing viz. by receiving one without the other cannot be without sacriledge 4. Now suppose at last that the Priests only are concern'd in this Canon yet even then also they are abundantly reprov'd because even the Priests in the Church of Rome unless they consecrate communicate but in one kind 5. It is also remarkable that although in the Church of Rome there is great use made of the distinction of its being sometime a sacrifice sometime only a sacrament as Frier Ant. Mondolphus said in the Council of Trent yet the arguments by which the Roman Doctors do usually endeavour to prove the lawfulness of the Half-communion do destroy this distinction viz. that of Christs ministring to the Disciples at Emaus and S. Paul in the Ship in which either there is no proof or no consecration in both kinds and consequently no sacrifice for there is mention made only of blessing the bread for they receiv'd that which was blessed and therefore either the consecration was imperfect or the reception was intire To this purpose also the words of S. Ambrose are severe and speak clearly of communicants without distinction of Priest and People which distinction though it be in this article nothing to the purpose yet I observe it to prevent such trifling cavils which my
upon what confidence I know not says that Theodoret hath nothing like it either under the title de Simone or Carpocrate And he says true but with a shameful purpose to calumniate me and deceive his Reader as if I had quoted a thing that Theodoret said not and therefore the Reader ought not to believe me But since in the Dissuasive Theodoret was only quoted lib. 5. haeret fabul and no title set down if he had pleased to look to the next title Simonis haeresis where in reason all Simons heresies were to be look'd for he should have found that which I referred to But why E. W. denies S. Austin to have reported that for which he is quoted viz. that Simon Magus brought in some images to be worshipped I cannot conjecture neither do I think himself can tell but the words are plain in the place quoted according to the intention of the Dissuasive But that he may yet seem to lay more load upon me he very learnedly says that Irenaeus in the place quoted by me says not a word of Simon Magus being Author of images and would have his Reader believe that I mistook Simon Magus for Simon Irenaeus But the good man I suppose wrote this after supper and could not then read or consider that the testimony of Irenaeus was brought in to no such purpose neither did it relate to any Simon at all but to the Gnosticks or Carpocratians who also were very early and very deep in this impiety only they did not worship the pictures of Simon and Selene but of Jesus and Paul and Homer and Pythagoras as S. Austin testifies of them But that which he remarks in them is this that Marcellina one of their sect worshipped the pictures of Jesus c. adorando incensumque ponendo they did adore them and put incense before them I wish the Church of Rome would leave to do so or acknowledge whose disciples they are in this thing The same also is said by Epiphanius and that the Carpocratians placed the image of Jesus with the Philosophers of the world collocatasque adorant gentium mysteria perficiunt But I doubt that both Epiphanius and S. Austin who took this story from Irenaeus went farther in the Narrative than Irenaeus for he says only that they placed the images of Christ c. Et has coronant No more and yet even for this for crowning the image of Christ with flowers though they did not so much as is now adays done at Rome S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of hereticks not for joyning Christs image with that of Homer and Aristotle Pythagoras and Plato but even for crowning Christs image with flowers and coronets as they also did those of the Philosophers for though this may be innocent yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any that were called Christians till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world 2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites So Varro when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods without picture or image adds quod si adhuc mansissent castius Dii observarentur and gives this reason for it qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt civitatibus suis metum dempsisse errorem addidisse The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error which place S. Austin quoting commends and explicates it saying he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images The same also was observed by Plutarch and he gives this reason nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam mente posse They accounted it impiety to express the Great Beings with low matter and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn 3. It was so known a thing that Christians did abominate the use of images in religion and in their Churches that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ and to account him as God because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities as is related by Lampridius 4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church although they were impatient of having any image and had detested all use of them especially ever since their return from Babylon and still retained the hatred of them even after the dissolution of their Temple even unto superstition says Bellarmine yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches much less their worshipping them And let it be considered that in all that long disputation between Justin Martyr and Tryphon the Jew in which the subtle Jew moves every stone lays all the load he can at the Christians door makes all objections raises all the envy gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images The like is to be observed in Tertullians book against the Jews no mention of images for there was no such thing amongst the Christians they hated them as the Jews did but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel On the other side when in length of time images were brought into Churches the Jews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod in which a Jew is brought in saying to the Christians I have believed all ye say and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ that he is the son of the living God Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon called the Misna published about the end of the second Century the Christians are not blamed about images which shews they gave no occasion but in the third part of the Talmud about the 10. and 11. age after Christ the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter In the Gemara which was finished about the end of the fifth Century I find that learned men say the Jews call'd the Christian Church the house of Idolatry which though it may be expounded in relation to images which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured yet I rather incline to believe that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messias for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters even those that have none and can endure no images in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a root of bitterness such as was in Esau when he undid himself and repented too late an evil heart in turning from the living Lord a sear'd conscience a walking according to the Prince of this world enemies of the cross of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as cannot cease from sin enemies that will not have Christ but the Devil to reign over them for this is the true state and constitution of vicious habits This is more than an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or hindrance of doing our duty it is a direct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disorder and corruption inherent in all our faculties 22. This is signally describ'd by S. Paul who calls it a concupiscence wrought by sin For sin saith he wrought in me all manner of concupiscence it is called by him a law in the members fighting against the law in my mind and the man he calls carnal sold under sin dead killed and the sin it self inhabitants peccatum sin dwelling in me and flesh in which dwelleth no good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the carnal mind These things as is evident cannot be spoken of the single actions of sin but of the law the power the dominion the reign the habit of sin It is that which was wrought by sin viz. by the single actions of sin and therefore he does not mean single actions neither can he mean the remanent guilt of the past action but he speaks of a direct state of sinfulness which is prolifical and productive of sin For sin wrought this concupiscence and carnal-mindedness and this carnal-mindedness is such a propensity and desire to sin and hath in it such easiness to act that it bringeth forth many sins and they bring forth death and therefore the Apostle says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this carnal mindedness is death and enmity against God this is that state in which whosoever abides cannot please God To the same purpose are those other expressions of Scripture calling this state Vias Balaam the ways of Balaam the son of Bosor a walking perversly with God a being sold under sin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hearts excercised or imployed and used to covetousness and it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sons of cursing The fault or charge is more than that of single actions and the curse is greater than ordinary as the sin is so is the curse the one is apportion'd to the other and appropriate 23. III. But I consider further A single act of sin does not in all cases denominate a man vicious A man is not called a drunkard for having been once drunk but for being often for repeating the act or continuing the affection Every single act provokes God to anger but that anger can be as soon rescinded as the act is past if it remains not by something that is habitual Indeed he is called a thief or an adulterer that does one action of those crimes because his consent in such things is great enough to equal a habit in lesser things The effect is notorious the prohibition severe the dangers infinite the reasons of them evident they are peccata vastantia conscientiam quae uno actu perimunt as S. Austin says they kill with one blow and therefore God exacts them highly and men call the criminal by the name of the vice But the action gives denomination but in some cases but the habit in all No man lives without sin and in the state of regeneration our infirmities still press upon us and make our hands shake and our foot to stumble and sometimes the enemy makes an inroad and is presently beaten out again and though the good man resolves against all and contends against all Pauca tamen suberunt priscae vestigia fraudis there will be something for him to be humbled at something to contest against to keep him watchful and upon his guard But if he be ebriosus or petulans if he be a drunkard or wanton an extortioner or covetous that is if he have a habit of any sin whatsoever then he is not the son of God but an heir of death and hell That therefore which in all cases denominates a man such both before God and before men when the actions do not that must needs have in it a proper malignity of its own and that 's the habit 24. IV. This we may also see evidently in the matter of smaller sins and the trifles of our life which though they be often repeated yet if they be kept asunder by the intercision of the actions of repentance do not discompose our state of grace but if they be habitual they do though it may be the single instances by some accident being hindred do not so often return and this is confess'd on all hands But then the consequent of this is that the very being habitual is a special irregularity 25. V. This also appears by the nature and malignity of the greater sins A vicious habit is a principle of evil naturally and directly And therefore as the capital sins are worse than others because they are an impure root and apt to produce accursed fruits as covetousness is the root of all evil and pride and envy and idolatry so is every habit the mother of evil not accidentally and by chance but by its proper efficacy and natural germination and therefore is worse than single actions 26. VI. If natural concupiscence hath in it the nature of sin and needs a laver of regeneration and the blood of Christ to wash it off much more shall our habitual and acquir'd concupiscence For this is much worse procur'd by our own act introduc'd by our consent brought upon us by the wrath of God which we have deserved springing from the baseness of our own manners the consequent of our voluntary disobedience So that if it were unreasonable that our natural concupiscence should be charged upon us as criminal as being involuntary yet for the same Reason it is most reasonable that our habitual sins our superinduc'd concupiscence should be imputed to us as criminal because it is voluntary in its cause which is in us and is voluntary in the effect that is it is delighted in and seated in the will But however this argument ought to prevail upon all that admit the article of original sin as it is usually taught in Schools and Churches For upon the denial of it Pelagius also introduc'd this opinion against which I am now disputing And lest concupiscence might be reckon'd a sin he affirm'd that no habitude no disposition nothing but an act could be a sin But on the other side lest concupiscence should be accounted no sin S. Austin disputes earnestly largely affirming and proving that a sinful habit is a special sinfulness distinct from that of evil actions malus thesaurus cordis the evil treasure of the heart out of which proceeds all mischief and a continual defluxion of impurities 27. VII And therefore as God
the injury which I have already suffered he cannot make me equal amends because whatever he does to me for the future still it is true that I did suffer evil from him formerly therefore it is necessary that I do what I can to the reparation of that but because what is done and past cannot be undone I must make it up as well as I can that is I must confess my sin and be sorry for it and submit to the judgment of the offended party and he is bound to forgive me the sin and I am bound to make just and prudent amends according to my power for here every one is bound to do his share If the offending person hath done his part of duty the offended must do his that is he must forgive him that wrong'd him if he will not God will untie the penitent man and with the same chain fast bind him that is uncharitable 39. But my brother may be hurt by me though I have taken nothing from him nor intended him injury He may be scandalized by my sin that is tempted to sin incouraged in his vileness or discontented and made sorrowful for my unworthiness and transgression In all these cases it is necessary that we repent to them also that is that we make amends not only by confession to God but to our brethren also For when we acknowledge our folly we affright them from it and by repentance we give them caution that they may not descend into the same state of 〈◊〉 And upon this account all publick criminals were tied to a publick Exoâ—ologesis or Repentance in the Church who by confession of their sins acknowledged their error and entred into the state of repentance and by their being separate from the participation and communion of the mysteries were declared unworthy of a communion with Christ and a participation of his promises till by repentance and the fruits worthy of it they were adjudged capable of Gods pardon 40. At the first this was as the nature of the thing exacted it in case of publick and notorious crimes such which had done injury and wrought publick scandal and so far was necessary that the Church should be repaired if she have been injured if publick satisfaction be demanded it must be done if private be required only then that is sufficient though in case of notorious crimes it were very well if the penitent would make his repentance as exemplary as Modesty and his own and the publick circumstances can permit 41. In pursuance of this in the Primitive Church the Bishop and whom he deputed did minister to these publick satisfactions and amends which custom of theirs admitted of variety and change according as new scandals or new necessities did arise For though by the nature of the thing they only could be necessarily and essentially obliged who had done publick and notorious offences yet some observing the advantages of that way of repentance the prayers of the Church the tears of the Bishop the compassion of the faithful the joy of absolution and reconciliation did come in voluntarily and to do that by choice which the notorious criminals were to do of necessity Then the Priests which the penitents had chosen did publish or enjoyn them to publish their sins in the face of the Church but this grew intolerable and was left off because it grew to be a matter of accusation before the criminal Judge and of upbraiding in private conversation and of confidence to them that fought for occasion and hardness of heart and face and therefore they appointed one only Priest to hear the cases and receive the addresses of the penitents and he did publish the sins of them that came only in general and by the publication of their penances and their separation from the mysteries and this also changed into the more private and by several steps of progression dwindled away into private repentance towards men that is confession to a Priest in private and private satisfactions or amends and fruits of repentance and now Auricular Confession is nothing else but the publick Exomologesis or Repentance Ecclesiastical reduced to ashes it is the reliques of that excellent Discipline which was in some cases necessary as I have declared and in very many cases useful until by the dissolution of manners and the extinction of charity it became unsufferable and a bigger scandal than those which it did intend to remedy The result is this That to enumerate our sins before the Holy man that ministers in holy things that is Confession to a Priest is not virtually included in the duty of Contrition for it not being necessary by the nature of the thing nor the Divine Commandment is not necessary absolutely and properly in order to pardon and therefore is no part of Contrition which without this may be a sufficient disposition towards pardon unless by accident as in the case of scandal the criminal come to be obliged Only this one advantage is to be made of their doctrine who speak otherwise in this Article The Divines in the Council of Trent affirm That they that are contrite are reconciled to God before they receive the Sacrament of Penance as they use to speak that is before Priestly absolution If then a man can be contrite before the Priest absolves him as their saying supposes and as it is certain they may and if the desire of absolution be as they say included in Contrition and consequently that nothing is wanting to obtain pardon to the penitent even before the Priest absolves him it follows that the Priests absolution following this perfect disposition and this actual pardon can effect nothing really the man is pardon'd before-hand and therefore his absolution is only declarative God pardons the man and the Priest by his office is to tell him so when he sees cause for it and observes the conditions completed Indeed if absolution by the Minister of the Church were necessary then to desire it also would be necessary and an act of duty and obedience but then if the desire in case it were necessary to desire it would make Contrition to be complete and perfect and if perfect contrition does actually procure a pardon then the Priestly absolution is only a solemn and legal publication of Gods pardon already actually past in the Court of Heaven For an effect cannot proceed from causes which are not yet in being and therefore the pardon of the sins for which the penitent is contrite cannot come from the Priests ministration which is not in some cases to be obtain'd but desir'd only and afterwards when it can be obtain'd comes when the work is done God it may be accepts the desire but the Priests ministery afterwards is not cannot be the cause why God did accept of that desire because the desire is accepted before the absolution is in being 42. But now although this cannot be a necessary duty for the reasons before reckon'd because the Priest is
seed Must every Bramble every Thistle weed And when each hindrance to the Grain is gone A fruitful crop shall rise of Corn alone When therefore there were so many ways made to the Devil I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendom can say half so much in justification of their own usefulness and necessity I know Madam that they who are of the other side do and will disavow most of these consequences and so do all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evils to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they believe such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargeable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I do not doubt but they would as much disown the Propositions as now they do the consequents and yet I do as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargeable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not in the World many men who own that which is evil in the pretence but many do such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Original sin be not a sin properly why are children baptized And what benefit comes to them by Baptism I answer As much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of Beasts whose blood could not take away sin it is certain and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sins But secondly This Objection can press nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sin But yet so it behoved him to fulfil all Righteousness 3. Baptism is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are born only to a natural life and a natural death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because until they be born anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of Heaven and co-heirs of Jesus 4. By Bapâ—ism Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresie who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to Heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptism is the great channel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sin and though their sins are not pardoned before-hand yet in Baptism they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of S. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptism Part 2. p. 194. in the Great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Original Sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so far also it is remissible for the evil that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evil purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jews who believed then the sin to be taken away when the evil of punishment is taken off so is Original Sin taken away in Baptism for though the Material part of the evil is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turned into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirm all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sence as Original stain is a sin so does Baptism bring the Pardon It is a sin metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many and just so in Baptism it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Original Sin to be a sin properly and inherently is expresly against the words of S. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Romans If it be I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise than is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holiness of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men do it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sence and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sin and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie temporal death for when the Apostle says Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not pass upon all men or if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned For if it had come for Adams sin then it had absolutely descended upon all men because from Adam all men descended and therefore all men upon that account were equally guilty as we see all men die naturally 4. The
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
good For the great one of una fides unum baptisma did not conclude it to their understandings who were of the other opinion and men famous in their generations for it was no Argument that they who had been baptized by Johns Baptism should not be baptized in the name of Jesus because unus Deus unum baptisma and as it is still one Faith which a man confesseth several times and one Sacrament of the Eucharist though a man often communicates so it might be one baptism though often ministred And the unity of baptism might not be derived from the unity of the ministration but from the unity of the Religion into which they are baptized though baptized a thousand times yet because it was still in the name of the holy Trinity still into the death of Christ it might be unum baptisme Whether Saint Cyprian Firmilian and their Collegues had this discourse or no I know not I am sure they might have had much better to have evacuated the force of that Argument although I believe they had the wrong cause in hand But this is it that I say that when a Question is so undetermined in Scripture that the Arguments rely only upon such mystical places whence the best fancies can draw the greatest variety and such which perhaps were never intended by the holy Ghost it were good the Rivers did not swell higer than the Fountain and the confidence higher than the Argument and evidence for in this case there could not any thing be so certainly proved as that the disagreeing party should deserve to be condemned by a sentence of Excommunication for disbelieving it and yet they were which I wonder at so much the more because they who as it was since judg'd had the right cause had not any sufficient Argument from Scripture not so much as such mystical Arguments but did fly to the Tradition of the Church in which also I shall afterward shew they had nothing that was absolutely certain 3. I consider that there are divers places of Scripture containing in them mysteries and Questions of great concernment and yet the fabrick and constitution is such that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sence of them should be literal or figurative I speak not here concerning extrinsecal means of determination as traditive interpretations Councils Fathers Popes and the like I shall consider them afterward in their several places But here the subject matter being concerning Scripture in its own capacity I say there is nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sence and meaning but it must be gotten out as it can and that therefore it is unreasonable that what of it self is ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sence and intention under the pain of either a sin or an Anathema I instance in that famous place from whence hath sprung that Question of Transubstantiation Hoc est corpus meum The words are plain and clear apt to be understood in the literal sence and yet this sence is so hard as it does violence to reason and therefore it is the Question whether or no it be not a figurative speech But here what shall we have to determine it What mean soever we take and to what sence you will expound it you shall be put to give an account why you expound other places of Scripture in the same case to quite contrary sences For if you expound it literally then besides that it seems to intrench upon the words of our blessed Saviour The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life that is to be spiritually understood and it is a miserable thing to see what wretched shifts are used to reconcile the literal sence to these words and yet to distinguish it from the Capernaitical phancy but besides this why are not those other sayings of Christ expounded literally I am a Vine I am the Door I am a Rock Why do we fly to a figure in those parallel words This is the Covenant which I make between me and you and yet that Covenant was but the sign of the Covenant and why do we fly to a figure in a precept as well as in mystery and a proposition If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and yet we have figures enough to save a limb If it be said because reason tells us these are not to be expounded according to the letter This will be no plea for them who retain the literal exposition of the other instance against all reason against all Philosophy against all sense and against two or three sciences But if you expound these words figuratively besides that you are to contest against a world of prejudices you give your self the liberty which if others will use when either they have a reason or a necessity so to do they may perhaps turn all into Allegory and so may evacuate any precept and elude any Argument Well so it is that very wise men have expounded things Allegorically when they should have expounded them literally So did the famous Origen who as St. Hierom reports of him turned Paradise into an Allegory that he took away quite the truth of the Story and not only Adam was turned out of the Garden but the Garden it self out of Paradise Others expound things literally when they should understand them in Allegory so did the Ancient Papias understand Apocal. 20. Christs Millenary raign upon earth and so depressed the hopes of Christianity and their desires to the longing and expectation of temporal pleasures and satisfactions and he was followed by Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Lactantius and indeed the whole Church generally till S. Austin and S. Hierom's time who first of any whose works are extant did reprove the errour If such great spirits be deceived in finding out what kind of sences be to be given to Scriptures it may well be endured that we who sit at their feet may also tread in the steps of them whose feet could not always tread aright 7. Fourthly I consider that there are some places of Scripture that have the selfe same expressions the same preceptive words the same reason and account in all appearance and yet either must be expounded to quite different sences or else we must renounce the Communion and the charities of a great part of Christendom And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing or in its circumstances or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes I instance in those great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ c. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis c. a non introibit in regnum coelorum for both these Now then the first is urged for the absolute indispensable necessity of baptism even in Infants insomuch that Infants go to part of Hell if inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they miss of baptism for that is the
particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them 12. The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertain whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consigned by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in several ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspicious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose 1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere where we may rest the soal of our foot And Nature Scripture and Experience teach the World in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to address our selves to the Church that in a plenary Council and Assembly she may Synodically determine Controversies So that if a General Council have determined a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we do not do ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prays for wisdom we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises and authority of General Councils For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a General Council If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not obliged to search for it or else we are saved by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a General Council So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church but I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as Charity and therefore consists in liberty and choice and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councils now then if they be tied to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certain that they will observe them that they will do all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetual instances and experiments of
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
left to our liberty to judge that way that makes best demonstration of our piety and of our love to God and truth not that way that is always the best argument of an excellent understanding for this may be a blessing but the other onely is a duty 6. And now that we are pitch'd upon that way which is most natural and reasonable in determination of ourselves rather then of questions which are often indeterminable since right Reason proceeding upon the best grounds it can viz. of Divine revelation and humane Authority and probability is our Guide stando in humanis and supposing the assistance of God's Spirit which he never denies them that fail not of their duty in all such things in which he requires truth and certainty it remains that we consider how it comes to pass that men are so much deceived in the use of their Reason and choice of their Religion and that in this account we distinguish those accidents which make errour innocent from those which make it become a Heresie SECT XI Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves 1. THen I consider that there are a great many inculpable causes of Errour which are arguments of humane imperfections not convictions of a sin And First The variety of humane understandings is so great that what is plain and apparent to one is difficult and obscure to another one will observe a consequent from a common Principle and another from thence will conclude the quite contrary When S. Peter saw the Vision of the sheet let down with all sorts of beasts in it and a voice saying Surge Petre macta manduca if he had not by a particular assistance been directed to the meaning of the Holy Ghost possibly he might have had other apprehensions of the meaning of that Vision for to myself it seems naturally to speak nothing but the abolition of the Mosaicall Rites and the restitution of us to that part of Christian liberty which consists in the promiscuous eating of meats and yet besides this there want not some understandings in the world to whom these words seem to give S. Peter a power to kill Hereticall Princes Methinks it is a strange understanding that makes such extractions but Bozius and Baronius did so But men may understand what they please especially when they are to expound Oracles It was an argument of some wit but of singularity of understanding that happened in the great contestation between the Missals of S. Ambrose and S. Gregory The lot was thrown and God made to be Judge so as he was tempted to a Miracle to answer a question which themselves might have ended without much trouble The two Missals were laid upon the Altar and the Church-door shut and sealed By the morrow-Mattins they found Saint Gregorie's Missal torn in pieces saith the story and thrown about the Church but S. Ambrose's opened and laid upon the Altar in a posture of being read If I had been to judge of the meaning of this Miracle I should have made no scruple to have said it had been the will of God that the Missal of Saint Ambrose which had been anciently used and publickly tried and approved of should still be read in the Church and that of Gregory let alone it being torn by an Angelicall hand as an Argument of its imperfection or of the inconvenience of innovation But yet they judg'd it otherwise for by the tearing and scattering about they thought it was meant it should be used over all the world and that of S. Ambrose read onely in the Church of Milain I am more satisfied that the former was the true meaning then I am of the truth of the story But we must suppose that And now there might have been eternall disputings about the meaning of the Miracle and nothing left to determine when two fancies are the litigants and the contestations about probabilities hinc indé And I doubt not this was one cause of so great variety of Opinions in the Primitive Church when they proved their several Opinions which were mysterious Questions of Christian Theologie by testimonies out of the obscurer Prophets out of the Psalms and Canticles as who please to observe their arguments of discourse and actions of Council shall perceive they very much used to doe Now although mens understandings be not equal and that it is fit the best understandings should prevail yet that will not satisfie the weaker understandings because all men will not think that another understanding is better then his own at least not in such a particular in which with fancy he hath pleased himself But commonly they that are least able are most bold and the more ignorant is the more confident therefore it is but reason if he would have another bear with him he also should bear with another and if he will not be prescribed to neither let him prescribe to others And there is the more reason in this because such modesty is commonly to be desired of the more imperfect for wise men know the ground of their perswasion and have their confidence proportionable to their evidence others have not but over-act their trifles And therefore I said it is but a reasonable demand that they that have the least reason should not be most imperious and for others it being reasonable enough for all their great advantages upon other men they will be soon perswaded to it For although wise men might be bolder in respect of the persons of others less discerning yet they know there are but few things so certain as to create much boldness and confidence of assertion If they do not they are not the men I take them for 2. Secondly When an action or Opinion is commenc'd with zeal and piety against a known vice o◠a vicious person commonly all the mistakes of its proceeding are made sacred by the holiness of the principle and so abuses the perswasions of good people that they make it as a Characteristick note to distinguish good persons from bad and then whatever errour is consecrated by this means is therefore made the more lasting because it is accounted holy and the persons are not easily accounted Hereticks because they erred upon a pious principle There is a memorable instance in one of the greatest Questions of Christendome viz. concerning Images For when Philippicus had espied the Images of the six first Synods upon the front of a Church he caused them to be pulled down now he did it in hatred of the sixth Synod for he being a Monothelite stood condemned by that Synod The Catholicks that were zealous for the sixth Synod caused the Images and representments to be put up again and then sprung the Question concerning the lawfulness of Images in Churches Philippicus and his party strived by suppressing Images to doe disparagement to the sixth Synod the Catholicks to preserve the honour of the sixth Synod would uphold Images And then the
other Masters whose Theorems might abate the strength of their first perswasions and it is a great advantage in those cases to get possession and before their first principles can be dislodg'd they are made habitual and complexionall it is in their nature then to believe them and this is helped forward very much by the advantage of love and veneration which we have to the first parents of our perswasions And we see it in the Orders of Regulars in the Church of Rome That Opinion which was the Opinion of their Patron or Founder or of some eminent Personage of the Institute is enough to engage all the Order to be of that Opinion and it is strange that all the Dominicans should be of one Opinion in the matter of Predetermination and immaculate Conception and all the Franciscans of the quite contrary as if their understandings were formed in a different mold and furnished with various principles by their very Rule Now this prejudice works by many principles but how strongly they do possess the understanding is visible in that great instance of the affection and perfect perswasion the weaker sort of people have to that which they call the Religion of their Fore-fathers You may as well charm a Fever asleep with the noise of bells as make any pretence of Reason against that Religion which old men have intailed upon their heirs male so many generations till they can prescribe And the Apostles found this to be most true in the extremest difficulty they met with to contest against the Rites of Moses and the long Superstition of the Gentiles which they therefore thought fit to be retained because they had done so formerly Pergentes non quò eundum est sed quò itur and all the blessings of this life which God gave them they had in conjunction with their Religion and therefore they believed it was for their Religion and this perswasion was bound fast in them with ribs of iron the Apostles were forced to unloose the whole conjuncture of parts and principles in their understandings before they could make them malleable and receptive of any impresses But the observation and experience of all wise men can justifie this truth All that I shall say to the present purpose is this that consideration is to be had to the weakness of persons when they are prevailed upon by so innocent a prejudice and when there cannot be arguments strong enough to over-master an habitual perswasion bred with a man nourished up with him that always eat at his table and lay in his bosome he is not easily to be called Heretick for if he keeps the foundation of Faith other Articles are not so clearly demonstrated on either side but that a man may innocently be abused to the contrary And therefore in this case to handle him charitably is but to doe him justice And when an Opinion in minoribus articulis is entertained upon the title and stock of education it may be the better permitted to him since upon no better stock nor stronger arguments most men entertain their whole Religion even Christianity itself 5. Fifthly there are some persons of a differing perswasion who therefore are the rather to be tolerated because the indirect practices and impostures of their adversaries have confirmed them that those Opinions which they disavow are not from God as being upheld by means not of God's appointment For it is no unreasonable discourse to say that God will not be served with a lie for he does not need one and he hath means enough to support all those Truths which he hath commanded and hath supplied every honest cause with enough for its maintenance and to contest against its adversaries And but that they which use indirect arts will not be willing to lose any of their unjust advantages nor yet be charitable to those persons whom either to gain or to undoe they leave nothing unattempted the Church of Rome hath much reason not to be so decretory in her sentences against persons of a differing perswasion for if their cause were entirely the cause of God they have given wise people reason to suspect it because some of them have gone to the Devil to defend it And if it be remembred what tragedies were stirred up against Luther for saying the Devil had taught him an argument against the Mass it will be of as great advantage against them that they goe to the Devil for many arguments to support not onely the Mass but the other distinguishing Articles of their Church I instance in the notorious forging of Miracles and framing of false and ridiculous Legends For the former I need no other instances then what hapned in the great contestation about the immaculate Conception when there were Miracles brought on both sides to prove the contradictory parts and though it be more then probable that both sides play'd the jugglers yet the Dominicans had the ill luck to be discovered and the actors burn'd at Berne But this discovery hapned by providence for the Dominican Opinion hath more degrees of probability then the Franciscan is clearly more consonant both to Scripture and all Antiquity and this part of it is acknowledged by the greatest Patrons themselves as Salmeron Posa and Wadding yet because they played the knaves in a just Question and used false arts to maintain a true proposition God Almighty to shew that he will not be served by a lie was pleased rather to discover the Imposture in the right Opinion then in the false since nothing is more dishonourable to God then to offer a sin in sacrifice to him and nothing more incongruous in the nature of the thing then that truth and falshood should support each other or that true Doctrine should live at the charges of a lie And he that considers the arguments for each Opinion will easily conclude that if God would not have truth confirmed by a lie much less would he himself attest a lie with a true Miracle And by this ground it will easily follow that the Franciscan party although they had better luck then the Dominicans yet had not more honesty because their cause was worse and therefore their arguments no whit the better And although the argument drawn from Miracles is good to attest a holy Doctrine which by its own worth will support itself after way is a little made by Miracles yet of itself and by its own reputation it will not support any fabrick for in stead of proving a Doctrine to be true it makes that the Miracles themselves are suspected to be Illusions if they be pretended in behalf of a Doctrine which we think we have reason to account false And therefore the Jews did not believe Christ's Doctrine for his Miracles but disbelieved the truth of his Miracles because they did not like his Doctrine And if the holiness of his Doctrine and the Spirit of God by inspirations and infusions and by that which Saint Peter calls a surer word
Testament they dishonour and make a pageantry of the Sacrament they ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ and please themselves in a sign without effect making Baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel full of leaves but no fruit and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 24. Thus far the Anabaptists may argue and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence that we may say of them as S. Gregory Nazianzen observes of the case of the Church in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They have been encouraged in their errour more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings then by any excellency of their wit and much less any advantage of their cause It concerned not the present design of this Book to enquire whether these men speak true or no for if they speak probably or so as may deceive them that are no fools it is argument sufficient to perswade us to pity the erring man that is deceived without design and that is all that I intended But because all men will not understand my purpose or think my meaning innocent unless I answer the Arguments which I have made or gathered for mine and their adversaries although I say it be nothing to the purpose of my Book which was onely to represent that even in a wrong cause there may be invincible causes of deception to innocent and unfortunate persons and of this truth the Anabaptists in their question of Paedo baptism is a very great instance yet I will rather chuse to offend the rules of Art then not to fulfill all the requisites of charity I have chosen therefore to adde some animadversions upon the Anabaptists plea upon all that is material and which can have any considerable effect in the Question For though I have used this art and stratagem of peace justly by representing the Enemie's strength to bring the other party to thoughts of charity and kind comportments yet I could not intend to discourage the right side or to make either a mutiny or defection in the Armies of Israel I do not as the Spies from Canaan say that these men are Anakims and the city-walls reach up to Heaven and there are giants in the Land I know they are not insuperable but they are like the blind and the lame set before a wall that a weak man can leap over and a single troup armed with wisedome and truth can beat all their guards But yet I think that he said well and wisely to Charles the fighting Duke of Burgundy that told him that the Switzers strength was not so to be despised but that an honourable peace and a Christian usage of them were better then a cruel and a bloudy war The event of that battel told all the world that no Enemy is to be despised and rendred desperate at the same time and that there are but few causes in the world but they do sometimes meet with witty Advocates in themselves put on such semblances of truth as will if not make the victory uncertain yet make peace more safe prudent mutual charity to be the best defence And First I do not pretend to say that every Argument brought by good men and wise in a righâ— cause must needs be demonstrative The Divinity of the eternal Son of God is a Truth of as great concernment and as great certainty as any thing that ever was disputed in the Christian Church and yet he that reads the writings of the Fathers and the Acts of Councils convened about that great Question will find that all the armour is not proof which is used in a holy War For that seems to one which is not so to another and when a man hath one sufficient reason to secure him and make him confident every thing seems to him to speak the same sense though to an adversary it does not for the one observes the similitude and pleaseth himself the other watches onely the dissonancies and gets advantage because one line of likeness will please a believing willing man but one will not do the work and where many dissimilitudes can be observed but one similitude it were better to let the shadow alone then hazard the substance And it is to be observed that Hereticks and misbelievers do apply themselves rather to disable truth then directly to establish their errour and every Argument they wrest from the hand of their adversaries is to them a double purchase it takes from the other and makes him less and makes himself greater the way to spoil a strong man is to take from him the armour in which he trusted and when this adversary hath espied a weak part in any discourse he presently concludes that the cause is no stronger and reckons his victories by the colours that he takes though they signified nothing to the strength of the cause And this is the main way of proceeding in this Question for they rather endeavour to shew that we cannot demonstrate our part of the Question then that they can prove theirs And as it is indeed easier to destroy then to build so it is more agreeable to the nature and to the design of Heresie and therefore it were well that in this and in other Qâ—stions where there are watchfull adversaries we should fight as Gideon did with three hundred hardy brave fellows that would stand against all violence rather then to make a noise with rams Horns and broken pitchers like the men at the siege of Jericho And though it is not to be expected that all Arguments should be demonstrative in a true cause yet it were well if the Generals of the Church which the Scripture affirms is terrible as an army with banners should not by sending out weak parties which are easily beaten weaken their own army and give confidence to the Enemy Secondly Although it is hard to prove a negative and it is not in many cases to be imposed upon a Litigant yet when the affirmative is received and practised whoever will disturb the actual perswasion must give his reason and offer proof for his own Doctrine or let me alone with mine For the reason why negatives are hard to prove is because they have no positive cause but as they have no being so they have no reason but then also they are first and before affirmatives that is such which are therefore to prevail because nothing can be said against them Darkness is before light and things are not before they are and though to prove that things are something must be said yet to prove they are not nothing is to be alledged but that they are not and no man can prove they are But when an affirmative hath entred and prevailed because no effect can be without some positive cause therefore this which came in upon some cause or other must not be
lawful or not but which were better To Confirm Infants or to stay to their Childhood or to their riper years Aquinas Bonaventure and some others say it is best that they be Confirmed in their Infancy quia dolus non est nec obicem ponunt they are then without craft and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them And indeed it is most agreeable with the Primitive practice that if they were Baptized in Infancy they should then also be Confirmed according to that of the famous Epistle of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain Ità conjuncta sunt haec duo Sacramenta ut ab invicem nisi morte praeveniente non possint separari unum altero ritè persici non potest Where although he expresly affirms the Rites to be two yet unless it be in cases of necessity they are not to be severed and one without the other is not perfect which in the sence formerly mentioned is true and so to be understood That to him who is Baptized and is not Confirmed something very considerable is wanting and therefore they ought to be joyned though not immediately yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to reasonable occasions and accidental causes But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church not only for the former reasons but also because the Apostles themselves were not Confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Others therefore say That to Confirm them of Riper years is with more edification The confession of Faith is more voluntary the election is wiser the submission to Christ's discipline is more acceptable and they have more need and can make better use of their strengths than derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them and to this purpose it is commanded in the Canon Law that they who are confirmed should be perfectae aetatis of full age upon which the Gloss says Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum Twelve years old was a full age because at those years they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church But the reason intimated and implied by the Canon is because of the Preparation to it They must come Fasting and they must make publick Confession of their Faith And indeed that they should do so is matter of great edification as also are the advantages of choice and other preparatory abilities and dispositions above-mentioned They are matter of edification I say when they are done but then the delaying of them so long before they be done and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that Ministery are very prejudicial and are not matter of edification But therefore there is a third way which the Church of England and Ireland follows and that is that after Infancy but yet before they understand too much of Sin and when they can competently understand the Fundamentals of Religion then it is good to bring them to be Confirmed that the Spirit of God may prevent their youthful sins and Christ by his Word and by his Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the Laws of King Edgar cap. 15. Vt nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimiùm detrectârit That none should too long put off his being Confirmed by the Bishop that is as is best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since as soon as ever by Catechism and competent instruction they were prepared it should not be deferred If it have been omitted as of late years it hath been too much as we do in Baptism so in this also it may be taken at any age even after they have received the Lord's Supper as I observed before in the Practice and Example of the Apostles themselves which in this is an abundant warrant But still the sooner the better I mean after that Reason begins to dawn but ever it must be taken care of that the Parents and God-fathers the Ministers and Masters see that the Children be catechised and well instructed in the Fundamentals of their Religion For this is the necessary preparation to the most advantageous reception of this Holy Ministery In Ecclesâ—is potissimùm Latinis non nisi adultiore aetate pueros admitti videmus vel hanc certè ob causam ut Parentibus Susceptoribus Ecclesiarum Praesectis occasio detur pueros de Fide quam in Baptismo professi sunt diligentiùs instituendi admonendi said the excellent Cassander In the Latin Churches they admit children of some ripeness of age that they may be more diligently taught and instructed in the Faith And to this sence agree S. Austin Walafridus Strabo Ruardus Lovaniensis and Mr. Calvin For this was ever the practice of the Primitive Church to be infinitely careful of Catechizing those who came and desired to be admitted to this holy Rite they used Exorcisms or Catechisms to prepare them to Baptism and Confirmation I said Exorcisms or Catechisms for they were the same thing if the notion be new yet I the more willingly declare it not only to free the Primitive Church from the suspicion of Superstition in using Charms or Exorcisms according to the modern sence of the word or casting of the Devil out of innocent Children but also to remonstrate the perpetual practice of Catechizing Children in the eldest and best times of the Church Thus the Greek Scholiast upon Harmenopulus renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive Exorcist was the Catechist And Balsamon upon the 26. Canon of the Council of Laodicea says that to Exorcize is nothing but to Catechize the unbelievers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some undertook to Exorcize that is says he to Catechize the unbelievers And S. Cyril in his Preface to his Catechisms speaking to the Illuminati Festinent says he pedes tui ad Catecheses audiendas Exorcismos studiosè suscipe c. Let your feet run hastily to hear the Catechisms studiously receive the Exorcisms although thou beest already inspired and exorcized that is although you have been already instructed in the Mysteries yet still proceed For without Exorcisms or Catechisms the Soul cannot go forward since they are Divine and gathered out of the Scriptures And the reason why these were called Exorcisms he adds Because when the Exorcists or Catechists by the Spirit of God produce fear in your hearts and do inkindle the Spirit as in a furnace the Devil flies away and Salvation and hope of Life Eternal does succeed according to that of the Evangelist concerning Christ They were astonished at his Doctrine for his word was with power and that of S. Luke concerning Paul and Barnabas The Deputy when he saw what was done was astonished at the Doctrine of the Lord. It is the Lord's Doctrine that hath the power to cast out Devils and work Miracles Catechisms are the best Exorcisms
indearments and an habitual worthiness An old friend is like old wine which when a man hath drunk he doth not desire new because he saith the old is better But every old friend was new once and if he be worthy keep the new one till he become old 10. After all this treat thy friend nobly love to be with him do to him all the worthinesses of love and fair endearment according to thy capacity and his Bear with his infirmities till they approach towards being criminal but never dissemble with him never despise him never leave him Give him gifts and upbraid him not and refuse not his kindnesses and be sure never to despise the smallness or the impropriety of them Confirmatur amor beneficio accepto A gift saith Solomon fasteneth friendships For as an eye that dwells long upon a Star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and Looking-glasses lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendor So must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low Caresses lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane It must be allowed its share of both It is humane in giving pardon and fair construction and openness and ingenuity and keeping secrets it hath something that is divine because it is beneficent but much because it is eternal POSTSCRIPT MADAM IF you shall think it fit that these Papers pass further than your own eye and Closet I desire they may be consign'd into the hands of my worthy friend Dr. Wedderburne For I do not only expose all my sickness to his cure but I submit my weaknesses to his censure being as confident to find of him charity for what is pardonable as remedy for what is curable But indeed Madam I look upon that worthy man as an Idea of Friendship and if I had no other notices of Friendship or conversation to instruct me than His it were sufficient For whatsoever I can say of Friendship I can say of His and as all that know Him reckon Him amongst the best Physicians so I know Him worthy to be reckoned amongst the best Friends TWO LETTERS TO PERSONS Changed in their RELIGION The First to a Gentlewoman Seduced to the Church of Rome The other to a Person Returning to the Church of England Volo Solidum Perenne THE FIRST LETTER M. B. I WAS desirous of an opportunity in London to have discoursed with you concerning something of nearest concernment to you but the multitude of my little affairs hindred me and have brought upon you this trouble to read a long Letter which yet I hope you will be more willing to do because it comes from one who hath a great respect to your person and a very great charity to your soul. I must confess I was on your behalf troubled when I heard you were fallen from the Communion of the Church of England and entred into a voluntary unnecessary Schism and departure from the Laws of the King and the Communion of those with whom you have always lived in charity going against those Laws in the defence and profession of which your Husband died going from the Religion in which you were Baptized in which for so many years you lived piously and hoped for Heaven and all this without any sufficient reason without necessity or just scandal ministred to you and to aggravate all this you did it in a time when the Church of England was persecuted when she was marked with the Characterisms of her Lord the marks of the Cross of Jesus that is when she suffered for a holy cause and a holy conscience when the Church of England was more glorious than at any time before Even when she could shew more Martyrs and Confessors than any Church this day in Christendom even then when a King died in the profession of her Religion and thousands of Priests learned and pious men suffered the spoiling of their goods rather than they would forsake one Article of so excellent a Religion So that seriously it is not easily to be imagined that any thing should move you unless it be that which troubled the perverse Jews and the Heathen Greek Scandalum crucis the scandal of the Cross. You stumbled at that Rock of offence You left us because we were afflicted lessened in outward circumstances and wrapped in a cloud But give me leave only to remind you of that sad saying of the Scripture that you may avoid the consequent of it They that fall on this stone shall be broken in pieces but they on whom it shall fall shall be grinded to powder And if we should consider things but prudently it is a great argument that the sons of our Church are very conscientious and just in their perswasions when it is evident that we have no temporal end to serve nothing but the great end of our souls all our hopes of preferment are gone all secular regards only we still have Truth on our sides and we are not willing with the loss of Truth to change from a persecuted to a prosperous Church from a Reformed to a Church that will not be reformed lest we give scandal to good people that suffer for a holy conscience and weaken the hands of the afflicted of which if you had been more careful you would have remained much more innocent But I pray give me leave to consider for you because you in your change considered so little for your self What fault what false doctrine what wicked and dangerous Proposition what defect what amiss did you find in the Doctrine and Liturgy and Discipline of the Church of England For its Doctrine It is certain it professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament all that which is in the three Creeds the Apostolical the Nicene and that of Athanasius and whatsoever was decreed in the four General Councils or in any other truly such and whatsoever was condemned in these our Church hath legally declared it to be Heresie And upon these accounts above four whole Ages of the Church went to Heaven they baptized all their Catechumens into this Faith their hopes of Heaven was upon this and a good life their Saints and Martyrs lived and died in this alone they denied Communion to none that professed this Faith This is the Catholick Faith so saith the Creed of Athanasius and unless a company of men have power to alter the Faith of God whosoever live and die in this Faith are intirely Catholick and Christian. So that the Church of England hath the same Faith without dispute that the Church had for 400 or 500 years and therefore there could be nothing wanting here to Saving Faith if we live according to our belief 2. For the Liturgy of the Church of England I shall not need to say much because the case will be every evident First Because the disputers of the Church of Rome have not been very forward to object any thing against it
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk and beat his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
shall all likewise perish Neither does God exacting or describing Repentance in several lines use any respect of persons but with the same measures he will deal with all For when there is a difference in the Divine mercy it is in giving time and grace to repent not in sparing one and condemning another who die equally criminal and impenitent Those little lines of hopes are not upon either of these foundations For whatsoever is known or revealed is against these persons and does certainly condemn them Why then are they bidden to hope and repent I answer once for all It is upon something that we know not And if they be not sav'd we know not how they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular When S. Peter had declar'd to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness and yet made him pray if peradventure the thought of his heart might be forgiven him he did not by any thing that was reveal'd know that he should be pardoned but by something that he did not know there might be hope It is at no hand to be dissembled out of tenderness and pity to such persons but to be affirmed openly there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any degree confident But he that hath a deadly wound whom the Chirurgeons affirm to be hopeless yet is willing to receive Cordials and to be dress'd 2. If in the measures of life and death which are described in large characters there be any lines so indefinite and comprehensive that they who preach and declare the doctrines do not fully take in all that God intends upon the account of our weakness and ignorance there may be some little rushes and twiggs to support their sinking hopes For although the matters of duty and the conditions of life and death are so plain and legible that we can all understand our obligation yet things are seldome so described that we can give the final sentence concerning others There is a secret in these things which nothing shall open but the day of Judgment No man may judge his brother that is no man can or ought to say This man is damn'd and yet we know that he that dies an impenitent Traytor or Rebel or adulterer is damn'd But yet that Adulterous Natta or the Rebel Cinna or the Traytor sâ—â—ti line is actually damn'd that we know not The reason is because our duty is described for us to guide and walk our selves by not to judge and sentence others And even the judgment of the Church who hath authority to judge and sentence yet it is only for amendment it is universal it is declarative it is conditional not personal final decretory and eternal For otherwise does man judge otherwise does God II. There is some variety in the case and in the person and in the degrees of Repentance There is a period beyond which God will not admit a man to pardon but when it is we know not There is a minimum Religionis the least measure of Religion the lowest degree of acceptability but what it is we cannot tell There is also a proper measure for every one but no man can fathom it And the duties and parts of Repentance consist in the terms of a great distance and latitude and we cannot tell when a man first begins to be safe and when he is newly escaped from the regions of sin and when he begins his state of grace Now as God abates great measures of his wrath and forgives all that is past if we return betimes and live twenty years in piety and repentance so he does if the man do so nineteen years and eighteen and still shortning till you come to a year or any the least time that can do the work of Repentance and exterminate his vicious habit Now because Abraham begg'd for the pardon of Sodom if there should be found fifty righteous there and then abated five and then five more and then ten more till he came to ten alone and it is supposed that Abraham first gave out and that God would have pardon'd the City for one righteous mans sake if Abraham had still persevered to ask if any man will suppose that it may be done so in the abatements of time to be made to a returning sinner though I say it is a strange diminution to come from years to one day yet I will say nothing against it but that length or shortness of time makes nothing to the mercies of God but it makes very much to the duty of man because every action requires some time and every habit much more Now we have reason to say that the condition of a dying penitent after a whole wicked life is desperate because so far as we understand things habits are not to be extinguish'd and the contraries acquir'd but with long time and study But if there be any secret way by which the Spirit of God does work faster and produce undiscerned miracles we ought to adore that goodness by which it is so and they that can believe this may hope the other In the mean time neither the one nor the other is revealed and so it stands as it did in the whole Question IV. We find in the instance of Abrahams faith that against hope he believed in hope that is that he had great arguments on both sides and therefore that in defiance of one he would hope in the other because this could not fail him but the other could If it can be brought to pass that a dying man can hope after a wicked life it is a hope against hope and of this all that I can say is that it is no contradiction in the thing to affirm that a dying penitent who hath contracted vicious habits hath not time left him to perform that repentance which God requires of habitual sinners under the pains of eternal death and yet to bid such a person do what he can do and pray if peradventure God will be intreated Because that little hopes which he is bid to have are not warranted or relying upon pretence of any particular revelation contrary to the so many expressions of severe duty and stricter conditions but are plac'd upon the foundation of the Divine Power and such little proportions and similitudes of things and guesses and conjectures of kind persons as can only be sufficient to make the dying man try what can be done V. The first ages of the Church did exactly use this method of Doctrine and Discipline In some cases whereof I shall afterwards give account they refus'd to declare them pardon'd to minister Gods pardon to dying penitents but yet would not bid them despair but refer them to the Divine judgment which if it be reduc'd to the causes of things if we believe they proceeded reasonably must mean this that they knew of no revelation concerning the pardon of such persons but whether God would or no pardon
them they knew not but bid them hope well And when they did admit dying penitents to the peace of the Church they did it de benè esse that it might do as much good as it could But they knew not what that was Poenitentiam dare possumus securitatem dare non possumus They are S. Austins words Now if I were to ask of him an account it would be in the same way of objection as I am now â—ntying For did God promise pardon to dying penitents after a wicked life or are there fearful threatnings in Scripture against such sinners as certainly all in their case are or hath God said nothing at all concerning them If God did promise pardon to such then why did not the Church give security as well as penance If God did threaten fearfully all such persons why do they admit such to repentance whom God will not admit to pardon but hath threatned with eternal death If he hath said nothing of them they are to be judged by the measures of others and truly that will too sadly ring their passing-bell For men in health who have contracted vicious habits cannot be pardoned so long as their vicious habit remains and they know that to overcome and mortifie a vicious habit is a work of time and great labour and if this be the measure of dying penitents as well as of living and healthful they will sink in judgment that have not time to do their duty But then why the Church of those ages and particularly S. Austin should hope and despair at the same time for them that is knew no ground of revelations upon which to fix any hope of pardon for them and yet should exhort them to Repentance which without hopes of pardon is to no purpose there is no sensible account to be given but this that for ought they knew God might do more than they knew and more than he had promised but whether he would or not they knew not but by that means they thought they fairly quit their hands of such persons VI. But after all this strict survey of answers if we be called to account for being so kind it must be confess'd that things are spoken out of charity and pity more than of knowledge The case of these men is sad and deplorable and it is piety when things are come to that state and saddest event to shew mercy by searching all the corners of revelation for comfort that God may be as much glorified and the dying men assisted as much as may be I remember the Jews are reproved by some for repeating the last verse but one in the book of Isaiah and setting it after the last of all That being a verse of mercy this of sorrow and threatning as if they would be more merciful than God himself and thought it unfit to end so excellent a book with so sad a cursing Indeed Gods ways are best and his measures the surest and therefore it is not good to promise where God hath not promised and to be kind where he is angry and to be free of his pardon where he hath shut up and seal'd his treasures But if they that say God hath threatned all such sinners as dying penitents after wicked life are and yet that they must not despair are to be reproved as too kind then they much more who confidently promise heaven at last It is indeed a compliance with humane misery that makes it fit to speak what hopeful things we can but if these hopes can easily be reproved I am sure the former severity cannot so easily be confuted That may this cannot 31. I. But now things being put into this constitution the inquiry into what manner of Repentance the dying penitent is oblig'd to will be of no great difficulty Qui dicit omnia nihil excipit He that is tied to all can be excus'd from none All that he can do is too little if God shall deal with him according to the conditions of the Gospel which are describ'd and therefore he must not inquire into measures but do all absolutely all that he can in that sad period Particularly 32. II. Let him examine his Conscience most curiously according as his time will permit and his other abilities because he ought to be sure that his intentions are so real to God and to Religion that he hath already within him a resolution so strong a repentance so holy a sorrow so deep a hope so pure a charity so sublime that no temptation no time no health no interest could in any circumstance of things ever tempt him from God and prevail 33. III. Let him make a general confession of the sins of his whole life with all the circumstances of aggravation let him be mightily humbled and hugely ashamed and much in the accusation of himself and bitterly lament his folly and misery let him glorifie God and justifie him confessing that if he perishes it is but just if he does not it is a glorious an infinite mercy a mercy not yet revealed a mercy to be look'd for in the day of wonders the day of judgment Let him accept his sickness and his death humbly at the hands of God and meekly pray that God would accept that for punishment and so consign his pardon for the rest through the blood of Jesus Let him cry mightily unto God incessantly begging for pardon and then hope as much as he can even so much as may exalt the excellency of the Divine mercy but not too confidently lest he presume above what is written 34. IV. Let the dying penitent make what amends he can possibly in the matter of â—eal injuries and injustices that he is guilty of though it be to the ruine of his estate and that will go a great way in deprecation Let him ask forgiveness and offer forgiveness make peace transmit charity and provisions and piety to his relatives 35. V. Next to these it were very fitting that the dying penitent did use all the means he can to raise up his spirit and do internal actions of Religion with great fervour and excellency To love God highly to be ready to suffer whatsoever can come to pour out his complaints with great passion and great humility adding to these and the like great effusions of charity holy and prudent undertakings of severity and Religion in case he shall recover and if he can let him do some great thing something that does in one little body of action signifie great affections any heroical act any transportation of a holy zeal in his case does help to abbreviate the work of many years If these things be thus done it is all that can be done at that time and as well as it can be then done what the event of it will be God only knows and we all shall know at the day of Judgment In this case the Church can give the Sacrament but cannot give security Meditations and Prayers to be used in all the