For others I shall be incurious because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety and they are the best Theatre and the best judges amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition to be ascribed by my publike pretence to be what I am in all heartinesse of Devotion and for all the reason of the world My Honour'd Lord Your Lordships most faithfull and most affectionate servant J. TAYLOR The Contents of the Sections SECTION I. OF the Nature of Faith and that its duty is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed Pag. 5. SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons pag. 18. SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined pag. 59. SECT IV. Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture pag. 73. SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine Questions pag. 83. SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councels Ecclesiasticall to the same purpose pag. 101. SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions pag. 125. SECT VIII Of the disability of Fathers or Writers Ecclesiasticall to determine our Questions with certainty and Truth pag. 151. SECT IX Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Iudge of Controversies and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit pag. 161. SECT X. Of the authority of Reason and that it proceeding upon the best grounds is the best judge pag. 165. SECT XI Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves pag. 171. SECT XII Of the innocency of Errour in opinion in a pious person pag. 184. SECT XIII Of the deportment to be used towards persons disagreeing and the reasons why they are not to be punished with death c. pag. 189. SECT XIIII Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing and when Persecution first came in pag. 203. SECT XV. How farre the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions pag. 210. SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions pag. 213. SECT XVII Of compliance with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in generall pag. 217. SECT XVIII A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists pag. 223 SECT XIX That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publique good pag. 246. SECT XX. How farre the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable pag. 249. SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion pag. 262. SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how farre they may doe it pag. 264. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OF THE LIBERTY OF PROPHESYING THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion as they have troubled Christendome with interests factions and partialities so have they caused great divisions of the heart and variety of thoughts and designes amongst pious and prudent men For they all seeing the inconveniences which the dis-union of perswasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefes and have made attempts accordingly But it hath hapned to most of them as to a mistaken Physitian who gives excellent physick but mis-applies it and so misses of his cure so have these men their attempts have therefore been ineffectuall for they put their help to a wrong part or they have endeavoured to cure the symptomes and have let the disease alone till it seem'd incurable Some have endeavoured to re-unite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow hoping that the Unity of a Guide would have perswaded unity of mindes but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched so farre was it from extinguishing any part of the flame Others thought of a Rule and this must be the meanes of Union or nothing could doe it But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety that this also became part of the disease for which the cure was pretended All men resolv'd upon this that though they yet had not hit upon the right yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion thinking so long as this variety should last Christ's Kingdome was not advanced and the work of the Gospel went on but slowly Few men in the mean time considered that so long as men had such variety of principles such severall constitutions educations tempers and distempers hopes interests and weaknesses degrees of light and degrees of understanding it was impossible all should be of one minde And what is impossible to be done is not necessary it should be done And therefore although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured and they who attempted it did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earth-quake yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured not by uniting their beliefes that was to be dispaird of but by curing that which caus'd these mischiefes and accidentall inconveniences of their disagreeings For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feeles were consequent to this diversity of perswasions yet it was but accidentally and by chance in as much as wee see that in many things and they of great concernment men alow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing and no hurt neither And certainely if diversity of Opinions were of it selfe the cause of mischiefes it would be so ever that is regularly and universally but that we see it is not For there are disputes in Christendome concerning matters of greater concernment then most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects and make factions and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters such evills are not consequent to such differences as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity or invalidity of a death-bed repentance then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination are of deeper and more materiall consideration then the products of the beliefe of the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of private Masses and yet these great concernments where a liberty of Prophecying in these Questions hath been permitted hath made no distinct Communion no sects of Christians and the others have and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determind on either side Since then if men are
have suspended or cassated the Decree in case the Pope had then disavowed it For besides the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy the 13 th and 55 th Canons of that Councell are expressely against the custome of the Church of Rome But this particular is involved in that new Question whether the Pope be above a Councell Now since the Contestation of this Question there was never any free or lawfull Councell * Vid. postea de Concil Sinvessane §. 6. N. 9. that determined for the Pope it is not likely any should and is it likely that any Pope will confirm a Councell that does not For the Councell of Basil is therefore condemn'd by the last Lateran which was an Assembly in the Popes own Palace and the Councell of Constance is of no value in this Question and slighted in a just proportion as that Article is disbelieved But I will not much trouble the Question with a long consideration of this particular the pretence is senselesse and illiterate against reason and experience and already determin'd by S. Austin sufficiently as to this particular Epist. 162. ad Glorium Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicaverunt non bonos judices fuisse Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium ubi etiam cum ipsis judicibus causa possit agitari ut si male judicasse convicti essent eorum sententiae solverentur For since Popes may be parties may be Simoniacks Schismaticks Hereticks it is against reason that in their own causes they should be judges or that in any causes they should be superior to their judges And as it is against reason so is it against all experience too for the Councell Sinvessanum as it said was conven'd to take Cognisance of Pope Marcellinus and divers Councels were held at Rome to give judgement in the causes of Damasus Sixtus the III Symmachus and Leo III and IV as is to be seen in Platina and the Tomes of the Councels And it is no answer to this and the like allegations to say in matters of fact and humane constitution the Pope may be judg'd by a Councell but in matters of Faith all the world must stand to the Popes determination and authoritative decision For if the Pope can by any colour pretend to any thing it is to a suprem Judicature in matters Ecclesiasticall positive and of fact and if he failes in this pretence he will hardly hold up his head for any thing else for the ancient Bishops deriv'd their Faith from the fountaine and held that in the highest tenure even from Christ their Head but by reason of the Imperiall * Vide Concil Chalced act 15. City it became the principall Seat and he surpriz'd the highest Judicature partly by the concession of others partly by his own accidentall advantages and yet even in these things although he was major singulis yet he was minor universis And this is no more then what was decreed of the eighth Generall Act. ult can 21. Synod which if it be sense is pertinent to this Question for Generall Councels are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam By audactèr as is supposed is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably but if to give sentence against him bee wholy forbidden it is non-sense for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance if they have no power of giving sentence unlesse it were to deserre it to a superiour Judge which in this case cannot be supposed for either the Pope himselfe is to judge his own cause after their examination of him or the Generall Councell is to judge him So that although the Councell is by that Decree enjoyn'd to proceed modestly and warily yet they may proceed to sentence or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent But to cleare all I will instance in matters of Question and opinion For not only some Councels have made their Decrees Numb 5. without or against the Pope but some Councels have had the Popes confirmation and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory but are known to be hereticall For the Canons of the sixth Synod although some of them were made against the Popes and the custome of the Church of Rome a Pope a while after did confirm the Councell and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall and so esteem'd by the Church of Rome her selfe I instance in the second Canon which approves of that Synod of Carthage under Cyprian for rebaptization of Hereticks and the 72 Canon that dissolves marriage between persons of differing perswasion in matters of Christian Religion and yet these Canons were approved by Pope Adrian I. who in his Epistle to Tharasius which is in the second action of the seventh Synod calls them Canones divinè legalitèr praedicatos And these Canons were used by Pope Nicholas I. in his Epistle ad Michaclem and by Innocent III. c. à multis extra de aetat ordinandorum So that now that wee may apply this there are seven Generall Councels which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour The * Vid. Socra l. z. c. 5. Sozom. l. 3. c. 5. Councell of Antioch A. D. 345. in which S. Athanasius was condemn'd The Councell of Millaine A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops The Councell of Ariminum consisting of 600 Bishops The second Councell of Ephesus A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresy was confirmed Gregor in Regist li. 3. caus 7. ait Concilium Numidiae errasse Concilium Aquisgrani erravit De ra ptore raptâdist 20. can de libellis in glossâ and the Patriarch Flavianus kild by the faction of Dioscorus The Councell of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus A. D. 730 And another at Constantinople 35 years after And lastly the Councel at Pisa 134 years since Now that these Generall Councels are condemn'd is a sufficient Argument that Councels may erre and it is no answer to say they were not confirm'd by the Pope for the Popes confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary or if it were yet even that also is an Argument that Generall Councels may become invalid either by their own fault or by some extrinsecall supervening accident either of which evacuates their Authority and whether all that is required to the legitimation of a Councell was actually observ'd in any Councell is so hard to determine that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Councell is authentick and sufficient probation 2. And that is the second thing I shall observe There are so many Questions concerning the efficient the forme the Numb 6. matter of Generall Councells and their manner of proceeding and their finall sanction that after a Question is determin'd by a Conciliary Assembly there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Councell upon its meere Authority or obtrude
in his Chaire and made the dictate the result of his pen and inke 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 himselfe 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 Mathematicall Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himselfe witnesses If pasce oves belongs only to the Pope by primary title in these L. 10. Epist. 83. cases the sheep came to feed the Shepherd 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 claime 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 weare a Pastorall staffe except it be in that Diocesse sayes Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not beare the M. 4. Sent. dist 24. Symbol but a man would think that the Popes Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastorall staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a businesse to be merry in But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super Numb 6. hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interressed 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 lesse as a Catholicon instead 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 a Ad Philadelph S. Ignatius S. b Seleuc. orat 25. Basil c L. 6. de Trinit S. Hilary d De Trinitate advers Iudaeos S. Gregory Nyssen e L. 3. Ep. 33. S. Gregory the Great f In 1. Eph. Ioann tr 10. S. Austin g De Trinit l. 4. S. Cyrill of Alexandria h L. 1. Ep. 235. 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 Universall beliefe of Christendome that the Church was built upon S. Peters person Cardinall Perron 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 causally 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 collaterall literall and morall originall and perpetuall accessory and temporall the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduc'd 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 naturall siliation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves lience 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 declaime 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 lesse credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false For * Epist. ad Philadelph In c. 16. Mat. tract 1. Ignatius expounds it in a spirituall sense which also the Liturgy attibuted to S. James cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 himselfe to the limits prescrib'd 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 Sun-shine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperiall 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 from the person to the confession of Peter and declar'd that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have required fancy with fancy but for the maine point that these two Expositions are inclusiue of each other I find no warrant for though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unlesse it could be shown by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratis dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviewes it againe and in his Retractations leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certaine in this Article which had been altogether needlesse if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have beene retracted both were alike true both of them might
Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne 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 himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere 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 expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall 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 Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters 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 then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then 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 retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre 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 doe Act. 13. 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 doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere 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 Act. 20. of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine 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 Act. 20. 4. 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 sense the lessar 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 vers 18. beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd 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 clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side
exception by S. Pauls 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 appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. 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 criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge 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 yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves 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 himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. 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 concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving 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 v. 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 himselfe 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 Ierusalem 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 affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall 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 meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall 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 Angell 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 fix't as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell 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 S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S.
as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocesse yet he also must assert his owne priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelij nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum cōtumeliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certaine Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their owne place and the GOSPELL and their BISHOP set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might doe nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affaire of their owne heads Well! Vpon this S. Cyprian himselfe by his owne authority alone suspends them till his returne and so shewes that his authority was independant theirs was not and then promises they shall have a faire hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me vti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plaine that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his owne authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have ask'd the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholike custome ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandement and dishonour the Bishop Yea Epist. 11. but the Confessors interceeded for the lapsi and they seldome were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters doe in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra EPISCOPO servent Let them ketpe your petitions for the BISHOP to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended Epist. 12. them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chaire and the Episcopall authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus Epist. 65. resolves this affayre for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abus'd his Bishop he complain'd to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the businesse that he would complaine to him cum pro EPISCOPATUS VIGORE CATHEDRAE AUTHORITATE haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopall and sufficient authority himselfe to have punish'd the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is cleare evidence for the great authority of Episcopall jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum POTESTATE HONORIS TUI ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him * And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from Epist. 55. the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. Iohn Chrysostome saies that in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox Tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 3. igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furiosum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergy that he was hated by them which clearely showes that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excesse of power authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergy unlesse thou strikest them all with thy Pastorall rod. S. Iohn Chrysostome did not indeed doe so but non multum post temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergy men for diverse causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was clearely and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyne with their Bishop to supend themselves Adde to this that Theodoret Ibid. cap. 4. also affirmes that Chrysostome intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere ALL them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierome to Riparius Miror sanctum Advers Vigilant Epist. 53. Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ APOSTOLICA virgâque ferreâ confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not mov'd at the fury of Vigilantius and does not breake him with his APOSTOLICALL rod that by this temporary punishment his soule might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hither to the Bishops Pastorall staffe is of faire power and coërcion The Councell of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgement of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would faine have been judg'd by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Councell S. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco
enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Lib. 4. polit c. 15. They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks the Presbyters 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 dispenser 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 himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke 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 Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's 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 himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. 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 Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre 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 travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre 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 onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour 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 dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they have supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee 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 loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what
However things are now It was §. 49. And trusted with affayres of Secular interest otherwise in the Old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honourd with so great degrees of approximation to himselfe in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their soules they might with an equall confidence trust with their personall 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 affayres in whose determination a Divine wisdome and interests of conscience and the authority of religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Common-wealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their severall interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their owne people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for faire issue upon such good grounds as they might fairely expect from the Bishops abilityes authority and religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as shee could and made sanctions against it so farre as shee might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arme to their owne assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawfull for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment S. Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular tribunall is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republike which must be indulged to a private personall necessity But we have not S. Paul's example onely but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another goe to law 1. Cor. 6. before the Vnjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgements 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 S. Ambrose also thought that to In hunc locum be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Iudges For by least esteemed he could not meane 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 S. Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Iesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Iesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Yea but S. Paul's expression seemes to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to Iudge betweene his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Iudges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but onely for S. Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem Fratrem Iudicem eligendum dicit quià adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus S. Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was Vide etiam August de opere Monach ca. 29. to be the man though till then in subsidium any prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwaies forbid to Clergy-men A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION of ingagements in REBUS SAECULI So the sixth Canon of the Apostles Can. 7. Latin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Vide Zonarin Can. Apostol Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himselfe worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is generall 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 owne trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sinne But if he seekes it for it selfe it is ambition In this sense also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seeke a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it selfe but the illnesse of the intention and this indeed shee expressely forbids in her Canons * Pervenit ad Sanctam Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti PROPTER LUCRA TURPIA conductores alienarum Concil Chalced Act. 15. can 3. possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos PROPTER AVARITIAM patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy men farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment FOR COVETOUS DESIGNES and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councell 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 negotijs saecularibus se immiscere No Bishop No Clergy man No Monke must farme grounds nor ingage himselfe in secular businesse What in none No none praeter pupillorum si fortè leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum earum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will doe right to the Question All secular affaires and bargaines either for covetousnesse or with considerable disturbance of Church offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much lesse for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councell of Arles Clericus turpis lucri Can. 14. gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But nor here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may doe any office that is in piâ curâ He may undertake the supravision of Widdowes and Orphans And though he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a guardian of pupills 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
office of power and great authority p. 102 21 Not lessened by the assistance and Councell of Presbyters p. 104 22 And all this hath been the faith and practice of Christendome p. 125 23 Who first distinguished names used before in common p. 128 24 Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the supream Church Officer p. 139 25 Calling the Bishop and him onely the Pastor of the Church p. 145 26 And Doctor p. 149 27 And Pontifex And Sacerdos p. 150 28 And these were a distinct order from the rest p. 156 29 To which the Presbyterate was but a degree p. 160 30 There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick p. 161 31 To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands p. 164 32 Bishops had a power distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters p. 175 33 Power of Confirmation p. 198 34 Power of Iurisdiction p. 209 Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 35 Vniversall obedience given to Bishops by Clergy and Laity p. 214 36 Bishops were appointed Iudges of the Clergy and spirituall causes of the Laity p. 220 37 Presbyters forbidden to officiate without Episcopall license p. 251 38 Church-goods reserved to Episcopal dispensatiō 264 39 Presbyters forbidden to leave their own Dioces or to travell without leave of the Bishop p. 266 40 The Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased p. 267 41 Bishops onely did vote in Councels and neither Presbyters nor People p. 282 42 The Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks p. 292 43 The Bishops Iurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes p. 295 44 Their Iurisdiction was ayded by Presbyters but not impayred p. 311 45 The government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary p. 323 46 They are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop p. 327 47 And Hereticks p. 329 48 Bishops were alwaies in the Church men of great honour p. 335 49 And trusted with affaires of Secular interest p. 351 50 And therefore were inforced to delegate their power and put others in substitution p. 371 51 But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church p. 375 ERRATA PAg. 21. line 8. insert except S. John Pag. 141. l. 15. Presbyters read Bishops Pag. 243. line 14. after Episcopacy insert c. l. 15. after Bishops insert Clerk Pag. 354. l. 11. read were Farmers OF THE Sacred Order and Offices of EPISCOPACY BY DIVINE INSTITUTION APOSTOLICALL TRADITION Catholick practise c. IN all those accursed machinations which the device and artifice of Hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church Inimicus homo that old superseminator of heresies and crude mischiefes hath indeavoured to be curiously compendious and with Tarquin's device put are summ a papaverum And therefore in the three ages of Martyrs it was a rul'd case in that Burgundian forge Qui prior erat dignitate prior trahebatur ad Martyrium The Priests but to be sure the Bishops must pay for all Tolleimpios Polycarpus requiratur Away with these pedling persecutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lay the axe at the root of the tree Insomuch that in Rome from S. Peter and S. Paul to S. Sylvester thirty three Bishops of Rome in immediate succession suffered an Honourable and glorious Martyrdome unlesse * Maximini jussu Martyrio coronatur Saith Platina but that is wholly uncertaine Meltiades be perhaps excepted whom Eusebius and Optatus report to have lived till the time of the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius Conteret caput ejus was the glorious promise Christ should break the Divell's head and though the Divell 's active part of the Duell was farre lesse yet he would venture at that too even to strike at the heads of the Church capita vicaria for the head of all was past his striking now And this I say he offered to doe by Martyrdome but that insteed of breaking crown'd them His next onset was by Iulian and occidere Presbyterium that was his Province To shut up publick Schooles to force Christians to ignorance to impoverish and disgrace the Clergy to make them vile and dishonourable these were his arts and he did the Divell more service in this finenesse of undermining then all the open battery of the ten great Rammes of persecution But this would not take For that which is without cannot defile a man So it is in the Church too Cedunt in bonum all violences ab extrà But therefore besides these he attempted by heresies to rent the Churches bowels all in pieces but the good Bishops gathered up the scattered pieces reunited them at Nice at Constantinople at Ephesus at Chalcedon at Carthage at Rome and in every famous place of Christendome and by God's goodnesse and the Bishops industry Catholick religion was conserved in Vnity and integrity Well! however it is Antichrist must come at last and the great Apostacy foretold must be and this not without means proportionable to the production of so great declensions of Christianity When ye heare of warres and rumors of warres be not afraid said our B. Saviour the end is not yet It is not warre that will doe this great work of destruction for then it might have been done long ' ere now What then will doe it We shall know when we see it In the meane time when we shall find a new device of which indeed the platforme was laid in Aërius and the Acephali brought to a good possibility of compleating a thing that whosoever shall heare his ears shall tingle an abhomination of desolation standing where it ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the praeparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostacy For if Antichrist shall exalt himselfe above all that is called God and in Scripture none but Kings and Priests are such Dii vocati Dii facti I think we have great reason to be suspitious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very neer conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concernes will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdome by which he governes all Christendome so themselves have taught us so that in case it be proved that Episcopacy is that government then they to use their own expressions throw Christ out of his Kingdome and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our feares in this and all things else may be vaine that what we feare may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and praeparatory to the great Apostacy I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of 1. times for now after that
these times have been called the last times for 1600 years together our expectation of the Great revelation is very neer accomplishing what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiasticall government contrary to the faith practice of Christendome may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy 2. if we consider the finall cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schisme and Heresy So in 1. ad Titū S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur coeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTUR And therefore if Vnity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schisme and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schisme is a division for things either personall or accidentall which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tryed there to receive their first and last breath except where they are starv'd to death by a desuetude and Episcopacy is an Unity of person governing and ordering persons and things accidentall and substantiall and therefore a direct confronting of Schisme not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schismes alwaies will be and this by divine prediction which clearly showes the necessity of perpetuall Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himselfe ordaining it who made the prophecy or by the Apostles and Apostolick men at least who knew the prophecy yet to be sure these divisions and dangers shall be greater about and at the time of the Great Apostacy for then were not the houres turned into minutes an universall ruine should seize all Christendome No flesh should be saved if those daies were not shortned is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schismes must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordayn'd as the remedy and obex of Schisme either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognisance of causes spirituall or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How farre these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves despergentur and I believe it will be verified at the comming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountaines as sheep having no sheapheard I am not new in this conception I learn't it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus Epist. 55. ad hoc ECCLESIae PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrociùs atque violentiùs circà Ecclesiae naufragin grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himselfe in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he sayes that Antichristi jam propinquantis adventum imitantur their deportment is just after the guise of Antichrist who is shortly to be revealed But be this conjecture vaine or not the thing of it selfe is of deep consideration and the Catholick practise of Christendome for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a cleare revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolicall for themselves or else hope for no beliefe against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin mee thinks in this contestation ubi potior est conditio possidentis it is a considerable Question what will the Adversaries stake against it For if Episcopacy cannot make its title good they loose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I feare they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequall but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gaines by it for although the cause goe on its side yet it looses costs and dammages for it must either by faire condescention to gain the adversaries loose something of it selfe or if it asserts it selfe to the utmost it is but where it was but that seldome or never happens for the very questioning of any authority hoc ipso makes a great intrenchment even to the very skirts of its cloathing But hûc deventumest Now we are in we must goe over FIrst then that wee may build upon a Rock §. 1. Christ did institute a governement in his Church Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his authority according to his lawes and by the assistance of the B. Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctuall to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce cleare Scripture for so maine a part of Christianity as is the forme of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomicall they will pretend a text I suppose it will not be thought possible Scripture should make default in assignation of the publick Government insomuch as all lawes intend the publick and the generall directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the generall 2. If Christ himselfe did not take order for a government then we must derive it from humane prudence and emergency of conveniences and concurse of new circumstances and then the Government must often be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the consequents are extreamely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of soules or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to doe But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiasticall which was the other consequent in the publike frame I meane and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schismes will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some townes that have discharged Simler de rep Helvet fol. 148. 172. Episcopacy At S t Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is president But the
it is Can. 5. permitted that any one may appeale to a Synod of BISHOPS si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himselfe wrong'd 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 ut 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 UISUM FUERIT humaniorum 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 owne 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 firme and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speakes indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocesse and jurisdiction The fourth Councell of Carthage gives in expresse termes the cognisance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop Can. 59. calling ayd from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractary 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 Clergy-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Councell with frivolous appeales and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemne him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Councell of Antioch is yet more particular in it's Sanction for this affayre intimating a cleare distinction of proceeding in the causes of a Bishop and the other of Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 4. 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 OWNE BISHOP if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopelesse of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Iudge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firme omnimodò 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 ..... Quod si Ecclesiam conturbare sollicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exter as opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appeare at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturbe the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Adde to this the first Canon of the same Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c If any one be excommunicate by his owne 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 Iudge 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 Councell of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 9. If any Clergy man have any cause against a Clergy man let him by no meanes leave his owne Bishop and runne to SECULAR COURTS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their owne BISHOP or by the BISHOPS LEAVE before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer vnder the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergy in matters criminall but also the civill causes of the Clergy must be submitted to the Bishop under paine of the Canon * I end this with the at estation of the Councell of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or Can. 13. 14. of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall goe to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his owne BISHOP that other Bishop must by no meanes receive him into his communion Thus farre we have matter of publike right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Iudge of the causes and persons of Clergy men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolicall Canons of the Generall Councells of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councells of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Iudge in all matters of Spirituall cognisance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them counsellors and assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mention'd in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmaticall resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would choose in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspition * Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing Epist. 10. to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was
the Bishop was Iudge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocesse that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of delinquency that his censures were firme 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't by them either in full Councell 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 unlesse in cases of appeale 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 Imperiall Constitutions Novel constit 123. c. 11. For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognisance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speake in most large and comprehensive termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to doe what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Councell of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though then S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proofe of you whether ye be obedient 2. Corinth 2. 9. IN ALL THINGS A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universall obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runne in descention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must doe NOTHING without your BISHOP 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in NOTHING Vbi suprà The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgement or cognisance so the Councell of Antioch Ca. 9. * But these Universall expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himselfe Ye must without your Bishop doe nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Councell of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiasticall persons it is an Ecclesiasticall power they are indowed with it is for a spirituall end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of soules and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopall cognisance And what things are those 1. Then it is certaine that since Christ hath professed his Kingdome 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 Host is Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunall did take cognisance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christ'ned And these are all actions civill all publike violations of justice all breach of Municipall lawes These the Church hath nothing to doe with unlesse by the favour of Princes and common-wealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annull such pious vowes is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unlesse there was sinne 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 it's new distinctive Principles I say by it's new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the lawes of nature there the secular tribunall 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 republike 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 Clergy to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchicall rites and ceremonies liturgyes and publike formes of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologyes tripart hist. lib. 10. cap. 9. and thence was deriv'd to all Churches of Christendome 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 pretious soules may much more be intrusted with the offertoryes of faithfull people 3. There are somethings of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiasticall concurre to their constitution and these are of double cognisance the secular power and the Ecclesiasticall doe both in their severall capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencyes of Clergy-men who are both Clergy and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencyes which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunall punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of speciall duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflected a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sinne of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their severall respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in severall ages upon the exigence of severall occasions and have severall powers for the engagement of Clericall obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the common-wealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognisance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiasticall because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things
because no Legat could come into England nor any publique messenger from the See Apostolique he imployed a Florentine Merchant to stirre her subiects to a rebellion for her perdition Nothing but Sollevamento Qui incolaruÌ„ animos ad Elizabethae perditionem rebellione factâ commoveret Rebellion Perdition and destruction to the Queen could be thought upon by his Holinesse More yet for when the Duke of Alva had seiz'd upon the English Merchants goods which were at Antwerp the Pope took the occasion instigated the King of Spain to aid the pious attempts of those who conspir'd against the Queen they are the words of Gabutius This rebellion was intended to be under Efflagitabat ab Rege ut Anglorum in Elizabetham pie conspiranrium studio foveret the conduct of the Duke of Norfolk Viro Catholico a Roman Catholique Gabutius notes it for fear some Heretik might be suspected of the designe and so the Catholiques loose the glory of the action However Pius quintus intended to use the utmost and most extreme remedies to cure her heresy all means to increase and strengthen the rebellion I durst not have thought so much of his Holinesse if his own had not said it but if this be not worse then the fiery spirit which our blessed Saviour reproved in Iames and Iohn I know not what is I have nothing to doe to specify the spirit of Paulus quintus in the Venetian cause this only Baronius propounded the example of Gregory the seaventh Hildebrand to him of which how farre short he came the world is witnesse Our own businesse calls to mind the Bulls of Pope Clement the eight in which the Catholiques in England were commanded to see that however the right of succession did intitle any man to the Crown of England yet if he were not a Catholique they should have none of him but with all their power they should hinder his coming in This Bull Bellarmine doth extreamly magnify and indeed Apol. adv R. Angl. it was for his purpose for it was if not author yet the main encourager of Cates by to the Powder Treason For when Garnet would willingly have known the Popes minde in the businesse Cates by eased him of the trouble of sending to Rome since the Popes mind was cleere I doubt not said Cates by at all of Proced agt. Traytors the Popes mind but that he who commanded our endeavours to hinder his coming in is willingenough we should throw him out It was but a reasonable collection I shall not need to instance in the effects which this Bull produc'd the Treason of Watson Cleark two English Seminaries are sufficiently known it was as a Praeludium or warning peice to the great Fougade the discharge of the Powder Treason Briefly the case was so that after the Publication of the Bull of Pius quintus these Catholiques in England durst not be good Subjects till F. Parsons and Campian got a dispensation that they might for a while doe it and rebus sic stantibus with a safe conscience professe a generall obedience in causes Temporall and after the Bull of Clement a great many of them were not good subjects and if the rest had not taken to themselves the Priviledge which the Pope â—â—noc Decretal de rescript cap. si quando sometimes gave to the Arch-bishop of Ravenna either to doe as the Pope bid them or to pretend a reason why they would not we may say as Creswell in defence of Cardinall Allen Certainly we might have had Philop pag. 212. n. 306. more bloudy tragedies in England if the moderation of some more discreetly temperd had not been interposed However it is no thank to his Holinesse his spirit blew high enough But I will open this secret no farther if I may have but leave to instance once more If I mistake not it was Sixtus Quintus who sometimes pronounced â—ep 11. 1589 a speech in full Consistory in which hee compares the assasinat of Iaques Clement upon Henry the third to the exploits of Eleazar Iudith where after having aggravated the faults of the murdred King concluded him to have died impenitent denyed him the solemnities of Masse Dirge and Requiem for his soule at last he ends with a prayer that God would finish what in this bloudy manner had been begun I will not aggravate the foulenesse of the thing by any circumstances though I cannot but wonder that his Holinesse should say a prayer of so much abhomination it is of it selfe too bad If his Holinesse be wrong'd in the businesse I have no hand in it the speech was printed at Paris three By Nichol. Nivelle and Rollin Thierry months after the murder of the King and avouched for authentick by the approbation of three Doctors Boucher Decreil and Ancelein let them answer it I wash my hands of the accusation and only consider the danger of such Doctrines if set forth with so great authority and practis'd by so uncontroulable persons If the Disciples of Christ if Apostles if the See Apostolique if the fathers Confessors prove Boutefeu's and Incendiaries I 'le no more wonder if the people call for fire to consume us but rather wonder if they doe not And indeed although it be no rare or unusuall thing for a Papist to be de facto loyall and duteous to his Prince yet it is a wonder that he is so since such Doctrines have beene taught by so great Masters and at the best hee depends but upon the Popes pleasure for his Loyalty which upon what security it rests you may easily guesse from the antecedents Thus much for consideration of the persons who ask'd the Question they were Christs Disciples they were Iames and Iohn But when Iames and Iohn saw this Our next inquiry shall be of the cause of this their angry Question This we must learne from the fore-going story Christ was going to the feast at Ierusalem and passing through a Village of Samaria ask'd lodging for a night but they perceiving that hee was a Iew Ver. 50. would by no meanes entertaine him as being of a different Religion For although God appointed that all of the seed of Iacob should goe up to Ierusalem to worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Chrysost. in hunc locum Tribes of the separation first under Ieroboam worship'd in Groves and High places and after the captivity being a mixt people halfe Iew halfe Gentile procur'd a Temple to be built them by Sanballat their President neare the City Sichem upon the Iosephi antiq Lib. 11. c. 6. mountaine Gerezim stiling themselves pertinentes Posiellus de linguis lib. 12 Deut. 27. ad Montem benedictum by allusion to the words of God by Moses they shall stand upon the Mount Gerezim to blesse the people and these upon Mount Ebal to curse And in case arguments should faile to make this schisme plausible they will make it good by turning their
it for they being publike persons from whose Deposition more may be gotten are like to suffer more ui ex tunc ipse Pontifex vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos terram exponat Catholic is occupandam as they are taught by Pope Innocent the third in the eight Lateran Councell such is their Excommunication for matter of Heresy as was this pretended in the Queenes case so that in respect of them the danger was apparent 2 It is plaine that Recusancy and disobedience came actually hand in hand I say not that one was the issue of the other but that they were coetaneous for the same persons that moved them to Recusancy by vertue of the Bull moved them to the execution of it per omnia Now see whither this would tend They by Recusancy were better able to judge of their forces in England and what party they were able to make for execution of the Bull whilest by that as by a discriminative cognisance they were pointed at as Abettors of the Catholike cause Thus farre they suffered not for their Religion or conscience unlesse it were against their conscience to be good subjects and then it was not Religion at least not Christian that was inconsistent with their Loyalty so hitherto inrespect of us their machination was altogether causelesse 2. For the second I mean the writing publishing of Seditious Trayterous Books I shall not need to say any thing in defence of its being made Capitall though sometimes they accuse our laws for it for Apud Linwood de senten excommunicat Item omnes illos excommunicationis innodanus sententia qui pacem tranquillitatem Domini Regis Regni iniuriose perturhare praesumunt qui iura Domini Regis iniuslè detinere contendunt they were ever so of a high nature Treasonable the Publishers of thē by the Canons of the Church were ipsofacto excōmunicate This I noted because the same censure involves more by vertue of the same Canon I mean not only the seditious Libellers but impugners of the Kings Regalties as also the Bringers Publishers and Executioners of the Bull as is to be seene in the constitution of Arch-bishop Stephen in a Councell held at Oxford But secondly whether they were or were not it matters nothing this I suppose was no part of their Religion therefore this might be made Treason and yet their Religion and peace of conscience undistarbed 3. But the next is the main outcry of all the very Conclamatum est of the Catholique cause if suffered it was made Treason to be a Priest or at least if any of their Priests should be found in England he should be adjudged a Traytor and these Lawes were not yet repealed but then in execution When certaine Sycophants told Philip of Macedon that some of his discontented Subjects called him Tyrant his answer was Rudes sunt Macedones scapham vocant scapham I wish these men who object this had the same ingenuity and would acknowledge that the rudenesse of a Macedonian tel-troth is no apparent calumny And truly as the case then stood it was no worse For consider that the statute against Priests was not made till sixteen years after the Bull of Pius quintus and after much evidence both by the confession of some Priests themselves and divers Lay-persons that at least many of them came into England with this errand that they might instigate the Queenes liege people to the Execution of it This is very plaine in the case of Mayne the Iesuit and M. Tregion who were executed 1577. at Launston for the same businesse The state could not certainly know what would be the issue but yet could not but think it likely to produce more and worse consequences for the future Leges autē justae in facta constituuntur quia futura Tacitus lib. 3. Annal. in incerto sunt The Queen then providing for her safety banished these Priests out of her dominions This was all and this done with so much lenity and moderation as if of purpose to render good for their evill such was her innocence and yet to provide for her safety such was her prudence She gave them forty daies time of preparation for their journey impos'd no penalty for their longer stay in case that any of them were lesse healthfull or that the winds were crosse or that the wether serv'd not provided that during their stay they gave security for their due obedience to her laws and that they should attempt nothing against her person or government for this was all she aim'd at but if they obeyed not the Proscriptiō having no just cause to the contrary such as were expressed in the Act then it should be adjudged their errand was not right therefore not their Religion but their disobedience Treasonable This was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the severity of this state against them now first I shall briefly shew that this proscription which was the highest penalty was for just cause as the case then stood and deserved on their part 2. It was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscription their stay should be made Treason 1. Because the Priests did generally preach the Popes power either directly over temporalls or else in order to spiritualls of which the Pope being judge it would come to the same issue and this was dangerous to the peace of the Kingdome and intrenched too much upon the Regalty In particular the case of bringing from the See of Rome and publishing of Bulls was by the Lords of the Parliament in the sixteenth year of Richard the second judg'd to be cleerely in derogation of the Kings Crown and of his Regalty as it is well known and hath been of a long time known and therefore they protested together and every one severally by himselfe that they would be with the same Crown and Regalty in these cases specially and in all other cases which shall be attempted against the same Crown and Regalty in all points with all their power I hope then if the State in the time of Queen Elizabeth hà ving farre greater reason then ever shall judge that these Bulles the publishing of them the Preaching of their validity and reconciling by vertue of them her Subjects to the See of Rome be derogatory to her Crown and Regalty I see no reason She should be frighted from her just defence with the bugbear of pretended Religion for if it was not against Religion then why is it now I confesse there is a reason for it to wit because now the Popes power is an Article of Faith as I shall shew anon but then it was not with them any more then now it is with us but whether this will convince any man of reason I leave it to himselfe to consider But one thing is observeable in that Act of Parliament of Richard the second I meane this clause as it is well knowne and hath been of
a long time knowne The Popes incroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore and by its eld almost habituate but yet it grieved them neverthelesse nor was the lesse a fever for being hecticall but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds it may be made as apparent as the noon Sunne for these 600 years and upwards that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extream and continuall Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdome that our condition was under him worse then the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants or then our neighbors are now under their Belgick Tributes So many greivances of the people expilations of the Church abuses to the State intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued that it was a great blessing of Almighty God our Kingdome was delivered from them upon so easy termes which Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne thought would never be done but in Oregladii cruentandi and now to have all these mischiefes returne with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepinesse I said with more strength because what anciently at the highest was thought but a priviledge of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redresse And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Lawes against the Priests obtruding upon the State the Popes power I only referre him to the Parliament of Paris where let him hold his Plèa against those great Sages of the Law for their just censures upon Florentinus Iacobus Thomas Blanzius and Iohn Tanquerell who were all condemned 1561. to a solemne honorary penance and satisfaction to the State and not without extreme difficulty escaped death for the same cause But this is not all I adde Secondly the Pope had his Agent in England to stirre up the Subjects to rebell against the Queene as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and Gabutius It is not then imaginable that he should so poorely intend his own designes to imploy one on purpose and he but a Merchant and that the Priests who were the men if any most likely to doe the businesse should be un-imployed I speak not of the argument from matter of fact for it is apparent that they were imployed as I shewed but now but it is plain also that they must have been imployed if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Popes ordinary discretion Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischiefe Thirdly there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Lawes and subordination to the Prince But that so these Priests might I only bring two witnesses leading men of their own Side Thus Bellarmine The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subiection to Princes Lib. 1. cap. 2â— de Cleriâ—â—â— The same is taught by Emanuel S à in his Aphorismes Verbo Clericus I must not dissemble that this Aphorisme however it passed the Presse at first yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out The cause is known to every man For that it was meerely to serve their ends is apparent for their French freedome was there taken from them they durst not parler tout so neere the Parliament but the Aphorisme is to this day retain'd in the Editions of Antwerp and Colein If this be their Doctrine as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors I mean Sà and Bellarmine I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Lawes they plead exemption Secondly it was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscriptioÌ„ their disobedience should be made Capitall For if they did not obey then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawfull Prince and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inexcusable from the Lawes penalty which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion or if they did not sinne against their conscience then of necessity must they think her to be no lawfull Prince or not their lawfull Prince nor they her Subjects so ipso facto are guilty of high Treason their execution De simplie Pralat was for Treason not Religion and so the Principall is evicted which I shall beg leave to expresse in S. Cyprians language Non erat illa fidei Corona sed poena per fidiae nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus sed desperationis interitus For if Valentius banish Eusebius from Samosata and Eusebius obey not the edict if Valentius puts him to death it is not for his being a Christian that Theodoret. l. 4. c. 14. he suffers death but for staying at Samosata against the command of Valentius Such was the case of the Priests whom for just cause as I have proved and too apparent proofe of seditious practices the Queen banished Now if the Queen was their lawfull Soveraigne then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius or if they did not obey not to think the Lawes unjust for punishing their disobedience I say again their Disobedience not their Religion for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Lawes but the security of the Queen and State only aim'd at besides what I have already said is apparent to the evidence of sence For when Hart and Bosgrave Iesuits both came into England against the Law they were apprehended and imprison'd for the Lawes without just Execution were of no force for the Queenes safety but when these men had acknowledg'd the Queenes legitimate power and put in their security for their due obedience they obtain'd their pardon and their liberty The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton all which I hope were not Apostates from their Order or Religion but so they must have been or not have escap'd death in case that their Religion had been made Capitall Lastly this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth were born in England It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aim'd at But 't is so foule a Calumny I am asham'd to stand longer to efute it The proceedings of the Church and State of England were just honourable and religious full of mercy and discretion and unlesse it were that as C. Fimbria complain'd of Q. Scaevola we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger there is no cause imaginable I mean on our parts
former and by as great Doctors Ecclesia nimis graviter erraret si admitteret allquem Lib. 5. de Rom. Pout c. 7. Regem qui vellet impunè fovere quamlibet Sectam defendere haereticos So Bellarmine And again Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum si conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim But F. Creswell puts the businesse home to purpose Certè Ibid. non tantum licet sed summâ etiam iuris Divini necessitate ac praecepto imò conscientiae vinculo arctissimo Philopat p. 110 n. 162. extremo animarum suarum periculo ac discrimine Christianis omnibus hoc ipsum incumbit si praestare rem possint Vnder perill of their soules they must not suffer an hereticall Prince to reigne over them Possunt debent eum arcere ex hominum Christianorum Pag. 106. n. 157. dominatu ne alios inficiat c. 3 He that saith Subjects may and are bound to depose their Princes and to drive them from all rule over Christians if they be able meanes something more For what if the Prince resist still he is bound to depose him if he be able How if the Prince make a warre The Catholike subject must doe his duty neverthelesse and warre too if he be able He that saies he may wage a warre with his Prince I doubt not but thinks he may kill him and if the fortune of the warre lights so upon him the subject cannot be blamed for doing of his duty It is plain that killing a Prince is a certain consequent of deposing him unlesse the Prince be bound in conscience to think himselfe a Heretick when the Pope declares him so and be likewise bound not to resist and besides all this will performe these his obligations and as certainly think himselfe hereticall and as really give over his Kingdome quietly as he is bound For in case any of these should faile there can be but very slender assurance of his life I would be loth to obtrude upon men the odious consequences of their opinions or to make any thing worse which is capable of a fairer construction but I crave pard on in this particular the life of Princes is sacred and is not to be violated so much as in thought or by the most remote consequence of a publike doctrine But here indeed it is so immediate and naturall a consequent of the former that it must not be dissembled But what shall we think if even this blasphemy be taught in terminis See this too In the yeare 1407. when the Duke of Orleans had been slaine by Iohn of Burgundy and the fact notorious beyond a possibility of concealement he thought it his best way to imploy his Chaplaine to justify the act pretending that Orleans was a Tyrant This stood him in small stead for by the procurement of Gerson it was decreed in the Councell of Constance that Tyranny was no sufficient cause for a man to kill a Prince But yet I finde that even this decree will not stand Princes in much stead First because the decree runnes ut nemo privatâ Authoritate c. but if the Pope commands it then it is Iudicium publicum and so they are never the more secure for all this Secondly because Marianae tels us that this Decree is nothing Namque id decretum Concilij Constantiensis Romano Pontifici Martino quinto probatum non invenio non Eugenio aut De Reg R. instit lib. 1. c. 6 Successoribus quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat Thirdly because though the Councell had forbidden killing of Tyrannical Princes even by publique authority though this Decree had beene confirmed by the Pope which yet it was not yet Princes are never the more secure if they be convict of Heresy and therefore let them but adde Heresy to their Tyranny and this Councell Non obstante they may be killed by any man for so it is determin'd in an Apology made for Chastel Licitum esse privatis singulis Reges Principes Haereseos Franc. Verum Const. p. 2. c. 2. Tyrannidis condemnatos occidere non obstante Decreto Concilij Constantiensis And the Author of the Book de iustâ abdicatione Henrici 3. affirmes it not only lawfull but meritorious How much lesse then this is that of Bellarmine De Pont. R. lib. 5. c 6. Si Temporalia obsint fini Spirituali Spiritualis potestas potest debet coercere Temporalem omni ratione ac viâ If omni ratione then this of killing him in case of necessity or greater convenience must not be excluded But to confesse the businesse openly and freely It is knowne that either the Consent of the people or the Sentence of the Pope or Consent of learned men is with them held to be a publicum Iudicium and sufficient to sentence a Prince and convict him of Heresy or Tyranny That opinion which makes the people Iudge is very rare amongst them but almost generally exploded that opinion which Vide 〈◊〉 Image of both Churches makes the learned to be their Iudge is I thinke proper to Mariana or to a few more with him but that the sentence of the Pope is a sufficient conviction of him and a compleate Iudiciall act is the most Catholique opinion on that Side as I shall shew anon Now whether the Pope or learned men or the people be to passe this sentence upon the Prince it is plaine that it is an Vniversall Doctrine amongst them that after this sentence whosesoever it be it is then without Question lawfull to kill him and the most that ever they say is that it is indeed not lawfull to kill a King not lawfull for a private man of his owne head without the publike sentence of his Iudge but when this Iudge whom they affirme to be the Pope hath passed his sentence then they doubt not of its being lawfull That I say true I appeale to a Tom. 3. disp 5. q. 8. punct 3. Gregory de Valentia b In sum l. ◠c. 6. Apolog. ad Tolet c R. Angl. c. 13 Bellarmine d Defens fidei lib. 6 c. 4. Suarez e in 13 cap. ad Rom. disp 5. Salmeron f Quaest. p. in c. 3. Iud. Serarius g De iust iure to m. 4. tr 3. d. 6. Molina h Aphoris verb. Tyrannus 1. Instit Moral 2. p. lib. 11. c. 5. q 10. Emanuel Sà i Azorius k In Hercul Furent Martinus Delrius l de Iustit jure c 9. dub 4 Lessius m Chauuesauris polit Gretser n in resp ad Aphoris Calvinistarū Becanus o Contr. Calvinist Aphorism c. 3. ad Aphor. 1. Sebastan Heissius p In expostul ad Henrici Reg. pro Societate Richeome q in Apolog. pro Henrico Garnetto Eudaemon Iohannes r Ad annum 0undi 2669. n. 7. Salianus s Tract 29. p.